Tag Archives: Benghazi

Hillary Encounters Heartbreak on the Path to 2016

Clinton Global Initiative America Meetings Begin In ChicagoOriginally posted at American Thinker

We learned last January that Mrs. Clinton believes that if a person is murdered, after the fact it doesn’t matter how or why.  And while that proclamation was perfectly acceptable to the Obama Administration when it came to the deaths of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty, we’ve come to find out that if the decedent is black, that philosophy does not apply.

Hillary Clinton has expressed more sorrow over Trayvon Martin – a troubled teen whose death a jury unanimously decided occurred because Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman was defending himself – than she did over the deaths of four Americans that took place on her watch.

At the 51st annual convention of the Delta Sigma Theta, the largest African-American sorority, Mrs. Clinton expressed sentiments that were more appropriate for the Benghazi Four than they were for ‘Justice 4 Trayvon.’

Clinton shared with the sorority sisters that when she heard that the George Zimmerman verdict was not guilty, she reacted with great “heartache.” In a 30-minute speech pandering to 14,000 African-American women, the former Secretary of State said something that should have been directed toward the families of those who died in Benghazi: “My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence.”

Clinton continued: “No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.”  Nor should anyone’s child lose their life as a result of the negligence of a Secretary of State and an incompetent government that abandoned four men in their hour of need while in service to their country. 

Let’s put it this way:  Hillary and Obama were in charge of keeping those men and other Americans safe, but like a drunken chauffeur given the responsibility of getting a family home safe after attending a wedding, those who trusted the limo driver ended up dead.

Now, much to Clinton’s dismay, an unbiased citizen jury considered the evidence and decided that George Zimmerman was not guilty.  As a result Hillary, who, like Barack Obama, apparently doesn’t respect a judicial system rooted in what the president called a “fundamentally flawed” Constitution, now claims she suffered “deep painful heartache” when hearing the verdict.

The question for the woman who continues down the path toward 2016 unfazed by the four bodies lying in her wake is:  Where was the “deep painful heartache” when you were speculating about why terrorist militants attacked the Libyan consulate and killed four Americans?  And why, after acknowledging it was a terrorist attack and admitting that we needed to find out “what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing,” which is “still unknown,” have you moved on to bigger and better things?

On Benghazi, Hillary, who’s “looking backwards” on Trayvon, said the following:

But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

If she should run for president, it’s important that America remember that Hillary Clinton did say that regardless of whether it was “because of a protest” in Benghazi or because a guy like Trayvon was “out for a walk” on a dark rainy night, after a person is dead, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

And if what Mrs. Clinton says is true, that in regard to Benghazi “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again,” why then would she publicly decry a trial in Sanford, Florida that did what she said needed to be done in Benghazi, but still hasn’t been done?

Hillary’s Children are ‘Too Small to Fail’

HCtstfOriginally posted at American Thinker

It’s not news that shameless, self-promoting know-it-all Hillary Clinton has been champing at the bit for 40 years to assume the role of Big Kahuna.  After failing miserably as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, now Ms. Hill is gearing up for another presidential run in 2016, when, instead of explaining what happened in Benghazi, she plans to divert attention by feigning concern for small children.

That’s right, Hillary is for the children!  The pro-choice former secretary of state’s disingenuous 2016 presidential efforts will begin by exploiting children ages 0-5.

It’s basically common knowledge that Hillary is a quintessential liberal, and as Barack Obama has proven, left-wingers especially love to use children, dead and/or alive, as political ploys.  For Democrats, supporting the right to abortion, partial-birth abortion, late-term abortion, and, if need be, post-birth non-medical-intervention-abortion is a surefire way to garner political points.

Then there’s the tactic of dragging a group of children out after every major tragedy in order to do things like further suppress the Second Amendment.  And let’s not forget the old Hillary standby of advising parents that children are best raised in the village that Mrs. Clinton claims has recently gone global — that and turning the public school system into a place where kids are schooled to be more sexual than cerebral are what’s advanced progressives as having the kids’ best interest at heart.

That’s why, in preparation for receiving the Democrat nomination for president, it’s no surprise that Clinton is partnering with Global Motherhood and Next Generation, a nonpartisan group that endorses scientific examination of early childhood development, on an early childhood intervention initiative called “Too Small to Fail.”

Isn’t it interesting how global mother Hillary is suddenly so concerned about the early childhood development of 0- to 5-year-olds who, if they were still in the womb, she’d heartily support aborting (safely, legally, and rarely, of course)?

Nevertheless, in her four-minute “Too Small to Fail” video, Hillary, the consummate queen of didacticism, preaches at her audience in a hypnotic voice about how she plans to misuse children for political gain.  She begins by saying things like “Our country’s future depends on healthy kids and loving families.  They’re the building blocks of a strong and prosperous society.”

Besides the fact that our country has no future as long as liberals are in power, this is a woman who comes from the most infamous of all dysfunctional marriages — and she’s preaching to us about “loving families”?

Not to mention her daughter, Chelsea, recently bemoaning the lack of abortion services available when her grandmother Dorothy Howell Rodham was born out of wedlock.  If Hillary’s sham marriage and her daughter’s inability to recognize the impact on her own existence had her grandmother never been born is the type of society Hillary is selling, America had better not be buying.

Yet Hillary the expert stresses that “raising a family is hard work and it’s important to know that you are not alone.  We’re all in this together.”  That gobbledygook means that the goal of organizations like “Too Small to Fail” is to further inject communal influence into the nuclear family and instruct parents on how to parent liberal-style.  After all, Bill and Hill made such great choices.  Never mind that Bill couldn’t have cared less about the psychological effect his adulterous improprieties might have had on his impressionable daughter’s developing psyche.

Liberals need not worry, though; the “Too Small to Fail” collaboration is not called “Too Small to Abort.”  So although pro-choice Clinton is currently focused on the children, those efforts will not impose on liberals’ beloved right to kill the child who, if he or she were to somehow miraculously make it out of the womb alive, would then be promoted to the status of “Too Small to Fail.”

Maybe while Hillary’s at it, she can back that “children’s brain development” study up a few months to find out whether babies feel pain in utero and then report back to Barack Obama who, unbearable pain or not, supports abortion all the way up to the ninth month.

Either way, in the run-up to 2016, abortion fan Hillary must feel that she’ll gain political points if she reminds parents — as if they forgot — that “[o]ne of the best investments we can make is to give our kids the ingredients they need to develop in the first five years of life.”

No, Hillary, “one of the best investments we can make is to give our kids” the gift of life from the moment of conception, and to inculcate them with the belief that all life is sacred.  Clearly, that concept is something you and your liberal cohorts have no respect for as you shamelessly attempt to garner political support by displaying fake concern for the little ones.

Once and for all, Hillary Clinton should do America a gigantic favor and pack up her worn-out carpetbag, retire to that village she’s constantly selling, and leave the welfare of America’s children to those who truly care.

 

In the Wreckage of Moore, Oklahoma, Scoundrels and Fools Exposed

Barack_Obama_at_tornado-smashed_school_in_Moore_OklahomaOriginally posted at Clash Daily

Barack Obama loves to throw around Scripture and pepper prayer breakfasts, memorials, school shootings and Democrat conventions with out-of-context Bible verses. Apparently the president, who is able to compartmentalize actions and separate them from contradictory statements, doesn’t think America notices that a man who approves of the unencumbered slaughter of the unborn, partially-born, and even the just-born perceives himself to be some sort of virtuous Biblical king.

Not only that, but when he’s not citing Scripture, depending on the venue Obama has also been known to cover up crucifixes and lie so blatantly that he puts Liar Liar Jim Carrey to shame. For starters, think Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, and the AP.

So, to see Obama in his faux preacher attire and hear him quote Scripture he doesn’t believe, let alone adhere to, certainly should qualify as blasphemy.

Six days after a devastating EF-5 tornado that killed two dozen people as it virtually leveled Moore, Oklahoma with winds in excess of 200 mph, President Obama, still avoiding questions about the four Americans who returned from Benghazi in coffins, showed up in the “Sooner State”.

Ravaged by his own whirlwind of scandals, President Obama claimed he traveled to “Monroe”…oops, that’s Moore, as a lowly representative of the American people.

Just for context, it’s doubtful that when pledging federal support for “the reddest of the red states” the thinnest of thin-skinned presidents forgot that he lost the 2012 Democrat Primary in 15 Oklahoma Counties. But he gritted his teeth and flew in anyway, and while he was at it he milked a photo op and quoted some out-of-context Scripture.

When Jesus issued the Great Commission commanding His followers to go and preach the Gospel in every corner of the earth, in summation, this is what He said: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

With the rubble of the carefully chosen elementary school where seven children drowned as a backdrop, after passing out awkward hugs and flanked on either side by Governor Mary Fallin and Moore’s mayor Glenn Lewis, Obama referred to himself as “a messenger,” sent to let “everybody know that [they] are not alone.”

Funny, that was a message Ambassador Christopher Stevens never got in Benghazi the night he was left alone to be tortured and killed after begging for help that never came.

Then, waxing pseudo-spiritual, Obama shared a story about a Bible that was found in the rubble of a tornado that tore through Oklahoma on another day. Meanwhile the real miracle, the one that pro-choice Barack Obama would never acknowledge as a message from God, involved a purposely-flushed baby boy who was fished out of drainpipe alive in China.

Nevertheless, the president painted a rhetorical word picture replete with images of a gentle breeze softly blowing open the pages to a specific verse in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, chapter 32:2.

Obama then quoted the prophecy about a righteous king whom Isaiah said “shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest.” No one really knows whom Obama was alluding to exactly, but with the tornadic conditions swirling about and his promise to provide federal assistance, it’s easy to guess.

So the real message in Moore was this: Although the Americans in Benghazi were alone, Oklahomans are not alone. There’s a man who claims to be like a hiding place from tornadoes who just so happens to be the same man who was in hiding himself the night Christopher Stevens was being sodomized and left to die.

Somehow, considering those facts as well as others, hearing Barack Obama say that “God has a plan, but we are instruments of God’s will” seemed a smidgeon disingenuous coming from someone whose instrumentation was offline on September 11, 2012.

Nonetheless, while the president seemed to be personally identifying with Bible verses, what he should have done was continue to read, because the passages that followed accurately described his ineffectual leadership and the godlessness he condones – not only with the policies he furthers and supports, but also with his use of non-existent Biblical faith for political expediency.

If that Bible was really salvaged from the rubble the Scripture that Obama should have read but conveniently omitted include the following verses:

No longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected. For fools speak folly, their hearts are bent on evil:
They practice ungodliness and spread error concerning the Lord …Scoundrels use wicked methods, they make up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies.

So, regardless of how many cherry-picked Scriptures Barack Obama chooses to read and regardless of how deluded he is about who he really is, in the end, when the extent of Obama’s evil folly is finally exposed, “[n]o longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected” in Moore, Oklahoma, Monroe, Connecticut, or anywhere else.

The ‘100th Day Ongoing Misadventure’ Press Conference

0430-obama-press-conference.jpg_full_600-300x200Former President Bush has been back in Texas for four-plus years, but for the last approximately 1,500 days, America has been listening to President Obama pass the buck and shift the blame onto GW for everything but the fly that keeps landing on his nose in the East Room.

The genial George W. is still getting blamed for Obama’s worsening economy, growing national debt and ongoing recession, not to mention stagnant unemployment, a continuing fiscal crisis, and bad feelings in the Middle East toward America.  There’s no doubt, if asked, Obama would say that President Bush is the author of the “extraordinary times” he keeps referring to whenever he’s confronted with his own ineptitude.

The president would have us believe that, rather than chopping away at those golf balls he shoots into the hazards, he spends every waking moment digging out of an “incredible hole that [he] inherited.”  In other words, when it comes to other people’s mistakes, if he needs to point them out Barack Obama doesn’t limit himself to measureable time frames.  If the president can twist what was done 10 years ago into an excuse for the multi-tiered “train wreck” he’s authored, he will.

However, any mistakes attributable to Obama are treated quite differently.  No long-term looking back for the Obama Administration, oh no.  Bygones are bygones and what went before is now part of history and deemed inapplicable to events of the day.  Like water that has passed under a bridge, sand through the hourglass, past issues are gone and never referenced again.

Take for instance the stimulus debacle, Obama’s big pull out of Iraq, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.  When was the last time we heard about how the healthcare plan could bankrupt the nation?  What about the rapidly expanding food stamp rolls, or the sequester-cancelled White House tours disappointing children?

Even though Obama “jumps to conclusions” himself, especially on issues of race, and plays on racial tension every chance he gets, is any of it ever brought up?  What about the ‘Israel is our ally’ muddle, or Obama disrespecting various world leaders and inappropriately bowing to dictators?  Not a word!  Then there’s the oil spill/green energy mess, the president’s partiality toward Muslims, and open-arms attitude toward illegals.  Not to mention “Fast and Furious,” funding terrorism in Egypt, ignoring the Syrian “red line,” and having 12 domestic terrorist attacks on his watch.

Read the rest of the article at the Blacksphere

Outsmarting a Chicago Smarty at His Own Game

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s a week since the 2012 election, and personally, I’m totally disoriented.  I mistook Friday for Wednesday; I live on an island destroyed by hurricane Sandy; and my overall mood borders on despondent.  For me, anyway, it’s depressing that left-wing academes, women in vagina suits, illegal aliens, liberal progressives, 85% of all Muslims living in America, and Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all equally ecstatic about the re-election of Barack Obama.

While disconcerting to most, those types of accolades have not been wasted on the president.  He has mistaken a non-mandate for a mandate and is wasting zero time frenetically fast-tracking policies guaranteed to further limit the constitutional freedoms of every American, including those who were twirling around like Deadheads after the November 6 election was called.

And even though the Republicans retained control of the House, in the bleakness and disappointment that remains, there seems to be little hope left for those who thought the election would turn out differently.

The truth is that while the last vestiges of freedom hinge directly on state representatives who attest to conservative principles, hearing Barry’s favorite golf partner John Boehner saying that ObamaCare is now “the law of the land” has made many, including myself, want to throw ourselves off that “fiscal cliff” that’s currently the topic of alarmed discussion.

On the day following the election, Speaker Boehner politely acquiesced to the effect that the people’s choice indicates that indeed this is Barack Obama’s “moment.”  However, Boehner did maintain that while he’s committed to assisting the president in reining in entitlement programs and is anxious to support serious spending cuts, Congress is not open to punishing small business owners — i.e., “the rich” — with tax increases.

Sorry, but John Boehner feigning bravado coupled with Barack Obama’s self-assured swaggering has only added to the pervading depression that has gripped half the country.  What America is currently being subjected to by Barack Obama is the same “I won” attitude he had in 2009 when he proposed and implemented his failed $787-billion stimulus package.

Nonetheless, John Boehner has encouraged the president to take the lead.  Yet for the sake of the future of America, at this juncture, John is the one who should be doing the leading.

Instead of immediately extending an olive branch, what the speaker of the House should recognize is that he’s the one who holds the power when it comes to everything the cocksure Obama believes he now controls.  If Mr. Boehner spent more time paying attention and less time at the tanning salon, he might realize that the key to hamstringing Barack Obama’s goals is to outsmart a Chicago smarty at his own game.

How?  Well, before election week ended, the retired four-star general/civilian CIA director General David Petraeus admitted to an extramarital affair and promptly stepped down.  Petraeus’s shocking resignation took place one week prior to being compelled to testify before Congress about the seven-hour terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans on the anniversary of September 11.

As a group, most Obama voters have proven to be generally oblivious to the more serious issues facing America’s future.  Perhaps David Petraeus’s suspiciously timed resignation will be the thing that finally captures the attention of those who, thus far, have been more concerned with Big Bird and birth control than an American ambassador being raped, tortured, and killed.

Therefore, instead of allowing the haughty Barack Obama to continue calling the shots, House Republicans could use General Petraeus’s resignation as a catalyst to wrest control from the president and place it back into the hands of the American people.

To do so, it would be necessary for congressional Republicans to muster up the temerity to use the Benghazi cover-up as clout; then, once they’re hit in the paycheck, even those who supported the foolishly reelected Two-Term Terminator will be demanding answers about what went down in Libya.

In lieu of Petraeus’s testimony, the first step would be for Republicans to promptly petition the White House to hand over all correspondence relating to the Benghazi event.  John Boehner could then demand pertinent evidence including e-mails and videos from the Situation Room, from which place the terrorist attack was taped as it unfolded in real time.  If Barack Obama and his minions choose to continue to stonewall, the speaker will be justified in countering the president’s refusal by publicly refusing to comply with budgetary negotiations, including discussions about tax cuts, rates, and revenue.

If Mr. Boehner manages to effectively utilize the incident in Benghazi for political leverage and the nation subsequently careens forward over the “fiscal cliff,” the president can then be held accountable.  Moreover, Boehner will at least have a fighting chance to make the argument that the nation’s economic woes are a result of the White House refusing to come clean.

In other words, if, on behalf of the American people, Republicans in Congress suck it up and grasp the optimal set of circumstances currently before them, then, caught between a “fiscal cliff” and Benghazi, Barack Obama will be the one doing the surrendering, not the other way around.

The ‘Original Intent’ of Benghazi

Originally posted on American Thinker blog

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of the two former Navy SEALs who lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, is demanding answers as to why, if the White House Situation Room was watching Americans die in real time, did they decide to do nothing to stop it? The grieving father’s question: “Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?”

According to Mr. Woods, “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their cries for help,” Woods said, “my son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen [Doherty] risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation.”

In other words, two Navy SEALs were killed doing what they were trained to do. They ignored the command to stand down and chose instead to rush to the aid of those in distress and did so while the State Department and the White House stood by, watching the horror unfold in real time and choosing to do nothing to stop it.

Charles Woods claims that military officials told him that they could have saved those under attack. But Mr. Woods is convinced that someone higher up gave the order not to send backup. Now, the father of the former Navy SEAL is angry, saying, “We need to find out who it was that gave that command — do not rescue them.”

According to Fox News, “Security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound.” In addition, “U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace.” Remember that old Obama adage: better to sodomize, torture, and murder an American Ambassador than dare to violate Libyan airspace.

Nonetheless, in the “fog of war” and in response to prior reports, a CIA spokesperson, under the direction of CIA director and retired General David Petraeus, put out the following statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Obama administration has spent six full weeks blatantly lying, obfuscating, and blaming a low-budget anti-Islamic video for the attack on the U.S. consulate. Now, after dodging questions about whether requests for help were denied by U.S. officials, the Obama administration — more specifically President Barack Obama — is adamantly vowing that his administration will “find out what happened” and discipline those responsible.

Of course he has to say that. However, even if the president didn’t personally instruct security personnel in Benghazi to “stand down,” it’s not at all difficult to imagine an unruffled Obama watching the attack in real time, yawning, executing a sleepy stretch, and saying, “It’s getting late guys, I think I’ll turn in.”

Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that the sanctity of life isn’t exactly a top priority for pro-choice Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his belief that some human lives are disposable. Lest we forget, the president is an avid proponent of born-alive babies being left to die, or as he so aptly put it, “looked after” by the doctor that failed to kill them on the first try.

With that in mind, if a disposable human being were being purposely asphyxiated in a burning American consulate in Benghazi by a band of terrorists, perhaps Barack Obama felt that responding to desperate cries for assistance could “burden the original decision” of some other, more significant political goal. After all, the president did once say that a doctor attending to a suffering infant does “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Therefore, along with Mr. Woods, one can’t help but wonder if some “original decision” might have been undermined if military reinforcements were given the go-ahead to save the lives of the Benghazi four.

But not to worry, though — while consistently evading questions about the tragedy prior to Election Day, Barack Obama is about the business of assuring the American public that “We’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but we’re also going to make sure we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

Wow! Coincidentally, that is exactly what a concerned American public is planning to do too, Mr. President. At all costs, the facts will be gathered as to what really happened that ill-fated night in Benghazi, as well as what actions occurred in the White House Situation Room during the seven-hour attack. And rest assured, Mr. President, those who carried out those attacks and anyone who aided and abetted the enemy in the senseless murder of four Americans will be found and brought to justice.

Obama Sleeps While Americans Die

 Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Despite the poor economy, high unemployment, and the overall state of national malaise, Barack Obama has been hinging his prospects for reelection solely on the fact that the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is dead. Rather than giving most of the credit to Seal Team Six, who actually risked their lives by entering the global terrorist’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, President Obama has spent months extolling his own steely determination.

Few would argue that after September 11th 2001, George W. Bush’s handling of the terrorist attack on American soil is what likely won him a second term. Be it Timothy McVeigh or al-Qaeda, American presidents staring down extremists on behalf of Americans usually gains them more supporters than critics.

Therefore, listening to Barack Obama talk about his positive impact on the war on terror, one would think that the 44th president finally found a winning formula to ensure a second term and a terror-free future for Americans around the world.

Yet, what Obama never mentions are the 30 Americans, 22 of whom were DEVGRU Seal Team Six elite Navy SEALS who, in the aftermath of bin Laden’s body being dumped in the North Arabian Sea, were shot down by insurgents while flying in Chinook helicopters in Afghanistan. In addition, what Barack Obama also never addresses is the astounding increase in military deaths by hostile Taliban forces since he took office in 2009.

Now, Barack Obama finds himself up to his nostrils in the muck and mire of controversy over a terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. On the anniversary of killing 3,000 innocent Americans 11 years prior, in a pre-planned, coordinated attack on the American consulate in Benghazi the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for slaying US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

America is now learning that despite the Obama administration’s indignant reaction to a low-budget anti-Islam video which for two weeks was blamed for the loss of life in Benghazi, the White House was fully aware that what was happening was indeed a terrorist attack. In the same Situation Room where Beyonce and Jay-Z had visited months earlier, the White House watched in real time, via unmanned Predator drone, for five of the seven hours that the four Americans struggled to stay alive. In the end, President Obama chose to do nothing to stop it.

Worse yet, it is being alleged that while Christopher Stevens was being tortured, raped, and killed, the president, who had plans to go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the next day, went to bed. Meanwhile, as the president slept, life-saving troops were but an hour away in Italy.

That brings us to the 2012 election. Despite his desperate attempts to convince Americans that he singlehandedly rid the planet of the world’s most notorious terrorist, unlike George W. Bush in 2004, it appears that the bin Laden slayer is still losing credibility with American voters.

One can’t help but think that if on September 11, 2012 Barack Obama had at least attempted to rescue those four Americans, his prospects for reelection would be quite different today. If the commander-in-chief had demanded that every effort be made to save the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty, even if the effort failed he would have been viewed as a tough leader. The drama, the bravery, and the dedication of a US president vowing to “leave no man behind,” whatever the cost, would have eradicated any chance Mitt Romney might have had to replace Barack Obama behind the Resolute Desk come January.

Instead, on the anniversary of September 11th Barack Obama chose to turn his back on four Americans whose lives were lost at the hands of Ansar al-Sharia, and the question is why? Didn’t the President realize that by saving their lives, in the process he could have also secured a second term?

So yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, but as the American body count continues to climb, the question that remains is: What possible reason could Barack Obama offer America for sending SEAL Team Six into Pakistan to kill one terrorist, but then refuse to send help to Libya to rescue four Americans under siege by a band of murderous militants?

This time, Barack Obama’s foolhardy decision to put himself first cost four Americans their lives and should also cost him the election.

The Obama-Crowley Transcript Charade

Many people are asking the question:  Did something seem rotten in Hempstead? In preparation for the second debate, moderator par excellence Candy Crowley was the one who picked the debate questions, including the hot-button query on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.

That Libya question was presented to Barack Obama by Kerry Ladka in the following way:

 LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Predictably, President Obama gave a non-answer:

 PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

In his reply Obama focused on goading Romney by accusing him of “trying to make political points” by attempting to “turn national security into a political issue.”  Obama went on to say that the next day in the Rose Garden he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror,” which he knew would get Romney’s attention.

When Mitt Romney challenged the President’s claim to have admitted that it was an “act of terror” the next day, a relaxed Obama smiled haughtily, balanced himself on his stool and said, “Please proceed…please proceed Governor” as if to say “Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.”

Obama then signaled to Crowley to “Get the transcript.”  Wonder of wonders, Candy just happened to have Obama’s Rose Garden comments right in her hand. Crowley, who obviously didn’t read the transcript, proceeded to agree with Obama by informing Romney that the President did indeed say that it was an “act of terrorism.”   A smirking Obama then delighted the audience when he smarmily yelled out, “Could you say that a little louder” honey, I mean Candy?

Was Mitt set up?  It appears that Obama purposely instigated the Benghazi controversy.  If not, then why would tag team Obama/Crowley just so happen to have the Rose Garden transcript handy?  Obama called for a reading from the record and was supported by the supposedly neutral debate moderator with an interpretational stretch that endeavored to make Mitt Romney look clueless and as if he was trying to score political points.

By the next day, besides admitting she was wrong on the facts, Candy Crowley also revealed that she was wearing a Peter Popoff-style earpiece, which she claimed “played no part in the Benghazi/terror exchange.”

The question is, did Candy Crowley have any other transcripts in her debate brush-up pile?  And if not, why not?

There is no way to know for sure whether the Obama/Crowley crew attempted, albeit poorly, to purposely ensnare Mitt Romney, but based on what happened at Hofstra University, an orchestrated liberal assault is certainly something that doesn’t seem out of the question.

 

‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “He — he did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

Obama’s Campaign Bus Parks on Top of Hillary

Originally posted at American Thinker

Americans are supposed to believe that it took one full month for the “smartest woman in the world,” Hillary Clinton, to figure out that the “buck stops” with her?  What was she doing from September 11 to October 15?  Trying to figure out whether to go to Peru, trim her overgrown locks, or visit her daughter Chelsea for an extended fall weekend?

During the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, Hillary Clinton had quite a different opinion about where it was the “buck” stopped.  Referring to herself at a rally in Missouri, Clinton said, “I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed.  That buck stopped in the Oval Office.”

As we all know, Hillary never made it to the Oval Office.  Instead, for four years, Mrs. Clinton has circumnavigated the globe on Barack Obama’s behalf looking like a bedraggled grandmother in need of a nap.  Finally, when the red phone did ring at 3:00 am at the White House, Hillary was in a different time zone, and Obama was probably at a Hollywood fundraiser.  Now, weeks prior to an election in which Barack Obama appears to be quickly losing his grip, Hillary crawls out from under the bus where Obama tossed her and addresses the deadly assault in Benghazi:

I take responsibility [for the four deaths in Benghazi]. I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

I take this very personally. So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.

Why would Hillary shoulder the entire blame?  Didn’t the Obama administration initially blame the September 11 murders on a band of armed rabble-rousers who spontaneously stormed the consulate and then tortured and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer expert Sean Smith, and security contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to avenge the Prophet Mohammed over a low-budget video mocking Islam made by an American?

That explanation made about as much sense as saying that 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001 as a result of the attackers being offended that they were denied peanuts on flights out of Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C.

After swearing for a couple of weeks that a California videographer was to blame and after testimony by State Department employees that indicated that requests for more security had been rejected, the Obama administration finally conceded that the attack on the consulate was a coordinated terrorist attack.

All this apparently tickled the hell out of Joe Biden’s funny bone during the vice-presidential debate.  The vice president said that the White House was unaware of the requests to enhance security at Benghazi.  From the looks of things, it appears that Vice President Joe Biden’s loose lips were the catalyst that finally motivated the White House to find another fall guy (or gal) to cover for their glaring ineptitude.

The White House responded to Joe’s latest gaffe by saying that the jocular vice president did not know of the requests because requests for security are traditionally handled by the State Department.

So nearly seven days after Biden revealed that those in charge haven’t a clue, Hillary Clinton comes to the rescue by explaining that “[i]n the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion.”  Someone should tell Miss Hillary that there would be no fog of war if a powerful nation like the United States had strong leaders that fight a war to win.

Nevertheless, Hillary has decided to take the fall by saying, “And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence.  Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had.  As time has gone on, that information has changed.  We’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising.  That always happens.”

Umm, Mrs. Clinton, wouldn’t you agree that in this situation, it depends on what the definition of “intelligence” is?  A humbled Clinton then said that “[w]hat I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game.”  So by taking the blame, Hillary shielded Barry.

At this late date, Hillary’s mea culpa sounds more orchestrated than the attack in Benghazi. Did the secretary of state also speak with Christopher Stevens’ father, who refused say who he would be voting for come November 6th, but who did say he doesn’t want his son’s death politicized?

“I know that we’re very close to an election,” Hillary explained, saying “I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I’ve done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.” The question is whether Hillary is “stepping back” or stepping forward over a cliff.

Let’s face it: despite the controversy, Hillary and Bill Clinton still do have their sights set on a presidential run in 2016 and would never do anything to jeopardize that dream.  Hillary Clinton is not about to endanger 40 years of toiling for a position where she’d finally be the one answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 am, especially just to save Barack Obama’s bungling neck before an election.

Therefore, it appears that Hillary and Bill Clinton have decided that it would be politically expedient to “pull together” with a pusillanimous Democratic president running for re-election whose “war on women” now includes running over his secretary of state with his campaign convoy.

The only explanation is that Hillary Clinton is hoping that by volunteering to be a buck-stopper, she’ll be perceived by the American people as an honest, trustworthy, responsible leader.  In turn, Barack’s butt may be covered for another couple of weeks and, with any luck, those tire marks from the bus that’s rolling over her will fade before 2016.

%d bloggers like this: