Let me see. Obama and th Biden now say it is the INTELLIGENCE people who got it wrong: confusing a terrorist attack in Libya (with NO "spontaneous demonstratin" even occurring) with a "spontaneous demonstratino". And once the "intelleigence people" told the Obama Administratin that misinformation, here was, of curse, no way they could take it back until the Obama Administratino FINISHED a "full invesstigation". Thus, Obama HAD to go to the U.N. and NOT MENTION a terrorist attack in Libya, and the Obama Aministratin HAD to keep talking abut the Liya terrorist attack arising out of a "spontaneous demonstration", even though the "intelligence people' KNEW otherwise (and reported it) within 24 hours of the original attack. What choice did Obama havee, especailly since it COVERED for the Obama Administerration to "blame' the Libyan attack on that ridiculous YouTube clip? Unitl the "intelligence community" not only PROVED that the attack was a result of the videao, AND PROVED exactly WHO had committed the attack, weren't Obama and his minions ENTITLED to keep talking about the "original assessment tah" (from SOMEBODY--maybe an office boy at the CIA) that the atatck most likely arose out of the type of demonstration that had just occurred in Egypt? What? You say you don't understand how Obama and his HENCHMEN (let us call them by their ture title, in one of th emost disgraceful episodes--this attempt to cover up for political reasons--in U.S. history) can IMMEDIATELY "rush to judgment" basedon very preliminary inteligence, and then erfuse then dismiss MORE COMPLETE, ACCURATE later intelligence (like a few HOUS later) that the "video" was not responsible? Well, no sane person can understand this "argument", because it is DISHEONST (the most dishonest positoin I have ever seen from a U.S. President), but read the hedline of this article again. LIBYA came to the quick conclusion that this was a terrorist attack, while Obama was sending out Suan Rice, hi spoor U.N. ambassadro (a WEEK later) to STILL "blame" the Libyan attack on a "spontaneous demonstratin" about the "video". Then there are those media peole--on CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media--who are the MOST DISHOENST 'JOURNALISTS" WHO HAVE EVER LIVED: I am tlaking aubt those p;eole adopting the Obama LIE that it is all 'politics" to criticize the Obama Administratin over the Libyan attack and it saftermanth, UNLESS you can PROVE (to a 100% certainty) all of these things: That there was NO demonstratin; WHO conducted the attack; that the Obama Adiminstratin KNEW absolutely that an attack was going to occur; AND that ALL of the information received by Obama and his henchmen, after the attack, absolutely contradicted what Obama and his henchmen said in the weeks after the attack. Oh. And th efinal kicker for the DISHONET peole in the media who buy into this: You can't criticize the Obama Administratin AT ALL until the FINAL RESULTS of the "investigation" are al in. After all, these media peole assume, ONLY the Obama Adminstratin is permitted to "rush to jugment" (for political reasons, and with NO firm concusion supporting such judgment). No. I stand by my statement: These "journalists" buying into this "de"defense" of Obama are the MOST DISHOENST "JOURNALISTS" WHO HAVE EVER LIVED (albeit in a tie with other modern "journalsits").
Harry Truman? IN privatre, the profane Biden CURSES Harry Truman. Truman might not have even thrown ur INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE under the bus. He might have taken some responsibility for TELLING THE TRUTH. Yu can even see indications that CNN and the Obama Administratin are throwing SUAN RICE under the bus for going out and presenting the clear Obama line. Soledad O'Brien, this means YHOUI. Yes, you are one of the most desicable dishoenst peeople who has ever lived, and--as with Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper--I hope to someday be able to tell you so to yur face. No, there is NO occasion at which I wouiuld be greeted by these peole that I would not make a BIDEN pont of being RUDE, and telling them what I think of them. These are awesomely dishoenst peole, along with most of the peole of the mainstream media. I have seen Erin Burnett make SOME attemt toward honestry here, but really not the rest of CNN. No talk about comparing Harry Truman with Barack Obama on CNN. CNN agrees with Joe Biden: CURSE YOU, HARERY TRUMAN. Doubt me? let us now look aat the STATE DEPARTMENT.
Yep. Biden and the Obama Administratin, with some confusing and confused "help" from Hillary Clinton, has thrown the STATE DEPARTMENT under the bus. Now you and I may have thought that the State Department is PART of the Obama Administraitno, and part of Harry Truman's maxim that : "The buck stops here." Not so, for Obama, Biden, CNN, and similar minded people. No. It is the STATE DEPARTMENT peole who did not TELL the Obama people what they needed to know You get the feeling that the ONLY way these poor State Department "fll guys" COUULD have done this is to FORCE their way past Secret Cervice personeeel and PERSONALLY hand Barack Obama a report. Thus, the fact that the dismal secuirty situatin in Benghazi was REPORTED by peole on the ground, before the attack, does not mateer because such reports "nefer reached" Biden and Obama. That is their story, and they are sticking to it (Obama and Biden). Oh. And whatever "intelligence" there was did not count, because it was not "actionable intelligence" (the kind of "standard" that wuold have been RIDICULUED by the mainstream media in the years of George W. Bush). It gets worse.
The Obama Admiinistratin is now saing that seucirty at U.S. embassies and consulates is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the STATE DEPARTMENT. So much for Harry Truman. I think you can assume that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have DISAVOWED Harry Truman. Who HEADS the STATE DEPARTMENT? Right. HILLARY CLINTON. Does Hillary Clinton realize that here chances of being PRESIDENT are now GONE? The Obama Administratin has really thrown HER under the bus, and yet seh is stil out there making vague, confusing and inadequate statements about what happened (and waiting for an "investigatin") as if she does not realzie that her entire political career is now GONE.
It is amazing how the Obama Administratin takes NO responsibility for AnYTHING that goes wrong. Operatin "Fast and Furious"--which was APPROVED by peole reaching up into HIGH LEVELS in the Justice Department? Well, that operatin, where the U.S. government actually provided guns to the Mexican drug crtels that KILLED PEOPLE, is not the "responsiblity of Eric Holder, Barack Obama or Joe Biden, because there is no "evidence" those peole PERSONALLY APPROVED of the operatin That, of course, has not prevented Barack Obama from continuing to LIE abut the operation: saying that it was an operation "begun" in the Bush Administratin, long AFTER it had been CONCLUSIVELY established that the Bush Adminsitratin had attempted to SQUASH the operatin, only to have the Obama Administratin revive the idea.
Harry Truman must be rolling over in his grave, to watch Barack Obama and Joe Biden at work.
It remains my conclusion that this whole "video" cover up of what happened in Libya, for puroses of a POLITICAL NARRATIVE, is the worst, most inddefensible thing I have ever seen from an American President. No, In terms of MAGNITUDE, and consequences, this does not compartre with 50,000 Americans being killed in Vietnam, in a totally mismanaged war. And in obvius "crookedness", this probably does not compare to Watergatte. As far as out-and-out lies go, Clinto was certainly worse in his lies to the American peole (and under oath) about Monica Lewinsky. However, as I have stated, I lived through Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. And I don't think ANY of them wouuld have been this dishoenst on THIS typoe of matter: the ATTACK on a U.S. ambasador. As I have previously stated, all of the Presidents named, while not veryhonest, were SMARTE$R than this. And I actually believe that they would not have even thought of trying to falsely blame a terrorist attack n the United Sates on a "spontaneous demonstratin" over a video, in th truly disgraceful way Obama tried to do. No. Obama is the owrst I have ever seen and the way he has handled the Libyan KILLING of Americans DISQUALIFIES him from being Presdient of the United States--or at least SHOULD, for any reasonable voter.
Notice that we are now more than a MONTH after the Libyan attack, and we STILL seem to gbe getting NOWHERE in this "investigatin" of what happened in Libya. At this pont, the conclusion is obvius that Obama is trying to "run out the clock" (Watergate style), so that the electin occurs before the full facts in Libya can be known to the 'satisfactin" of our meda. This, alone, should disqualify Obama from any considertin for President of the United States. I know he is President now, but we are choosing our NEXT Persident in November. It should not be Barack Obama. I continue to endorse Gary Johso, even though I now that could be regarded as a "vote for Obama". But that oes not stop me from the conclusion that Barack Obama should not be President of the United States. I can't beleive that Harry Truman would disagree with me.
P.S. No proofreading or spel checknig (bad eyesight).