People died. Obama lied. Liberals want to talk about anything but the basic facts. However, neither George Bush nor global warming was involved. Anything liberals bring up about
is a deliberate red herring. For example, liberals say there is no
scandal. It’s just partisan
politics. This is a classic case of
projection, assuming conservative will carry water for their cause no matter
what the truth is. Liberals usually carry water for their cause without
regard to the facts, so they assume conservatives are doing the same. So
if questioning Benghazi
is partisan hackery, why won't the president reveal that he went to bed while
the attack was in progress. He needed to be well rested for his
fundraiser in Las Vegas
on September 12. Panetta testified that the president and Secretary of
State not involved in the decisions he made during the attack.
Journalists were like baying hounds when two US Navy aircraft shot down
two Libyan aircraft over the Gulf of Sidra in
1981. They demanded to know why President Reagan was not awakened to be
told of the incident. He famously replied that if the Libyan planes had
shot down our aircraft, his staff would have gotten him up. They didn't
need him if our aircraft shot down theirs. Point is, no Pravda Press MSM
journalist has even bothered to ask what Obama was doing during the attack.
There is a similar lack of interest in the activities of president
in waiting Hillary Clinton.
In her congressional testimony, Hillary Clinton said, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." Even in this testimony,
Clinton is trying to maintain the spontaneous
protest narrative. So how can we tell
what happened while all of this Obama administration obfuscation is flying
around? Why haven't the survivors who
were on the ground in Benghazi
testified? Why hasn't Patrick F.
Kennedy, the man responsible for the security cuts in Libya,
testified about why he approved the cuts?
The Democrats are trying to blame Republican budget cuts for the
security cuts in Libya, which sounds to me a lot like furloughing air traffic
controllers due to sequestration. Why
hasn't General Carter Ham, Commander of GOC Africa Command (Africom) on
9/11/12, been allowed to testify?
A comment on one of the
Benghazi articles (link below), speculated
that maybe there was some reason the Administration wanted Ambassador Stevens
dead. It wouldn't be the first time
someone was put at the front of battle and conveniently killed. This
comment really threw me back to Sunday school and Uriah the Hittite. King David put him in a position to get
killed in a battle, then withdrew support. The motive was probably
different for Obama. David was sleeping with Uriah's wife. But this
post really started me thinking about why Stevens was hung out to dry.
One other thing I noticed, since I live in Chicago. Both of Obama's rivals for the
Senate in 2004 were forced out of the race or defeated by leaks about their
divorces. General Petraeus got treatment similar to Jack Ryan
and Blair Hull, at a time convenient to Obama. I have always thought that
Petraeus’ forced resignation fit the pattern of rivals to Obama being
eliminated by a scandal in their marriage.
My father, a lawyer, used to say that if you didn't have the law or the facts on your side, then pound the table. Liberals are pounding the table with talk of “near-pathological" Republicans who are trying to "invalidate the Obama presidency." What do you think this means?