Just how dishoenst was President Obama, and the entire Obama Administratin, on the Libyan terrorist attack that MURDERED our ambassador (and 3 other Americans)? As dishoenst as a President of the United Staes has ever been, and MORE dishoent than ANY President of whom I am aware on something so importatn as the KILLING of an American ambassaodr. As I have said previusly, this is the WORST series of lies, for POLITICAL reasons, I have ever seen from an American President. For me, it disqualifies Obama from being Presdient of the United States (yes, should be an impeachable offense, except the Aermifan peole have the VOTE on that in a month, and that has to be the final verdict). IF Presdient Bush actualy KNEW that Iraq had no weaons of mass destructin, of which I have seen NO evidence, I would regard that as a greater lie. But that would also disqualify President Bush from being Presdient, and I am sure the American peole would have regarded it in that light.
No. Thre is no sugar coating it. President Obama LIED about the death of a U.S. ambassador for POLITICAL reasons, and that is indefensible (not to mentin the other 3 Americans who were killed). Doubt me? There you go again. The State Department officially annunced today wht I had told my borther days ago (and what had been reported weeks ago): There was NO "protest demonstration" going on--abut that anti-Muslim video trailer or anything else--when the TERRORIST ATTACK OCCURRED. What about that "spontaneous demonstratin" that Obama sent our U.N. ambassador to some FIVE Sunday shows to talk about: t that "spontaneous demonstratin" "copy catting" the Egyptian attack on our ebassy where the movie was at least used as an EXCUSE to stir up anger? The State Department admitted today that our U.N. ambassador is a LIAR, and that there was NO "spontaneous demonstratino". The KILLERS did NOT "use' an ongoing demonstratin to "inspire" them to attack our consulatte and kill our ambassador. There was NO "demosntration" before the attack occurred.--"spontaneous" or otherwise. Problem: The U.N. ambassaodr was NOT presenting the results of here own "inveestigation". She was presenting the OBAMA ADMINISTRAITN viiew: A LIE. No. This was not a "good faith" error in communication. It was a LIE. Within 24 hours, it was known that this was not some sort of "spontganeous demonstratin. Yet, for more than a week, the Obama Administratin ketpt up the LIE that this the problem was--even in Libya--entirely the result of "demonstratins" agistnst this "video".
Again. The State Department said today that there was NO DEMONSTRATIN in Libya going on in the area of our consulate, before the attack that killed our ambassador. The POLITCLAL LIE that the Obama Administration then went with is simly UNACCEPTABLE. The State Department statement today is an ADMISSION that the Obama Administratin LIED about the DEATH of an AmericaN ambassador for mroe than a week. Even now, I ma not sure ur PRESIDENT hs EVER used the wrod "terror" in connectin with this attack. I know. I should not attack someone for his DISABILITY. As this blog has prfeviuslyl revealed--in a scoop--Presdient Obama suffers from "terrorphobia": an unreasonable and overwhelming fear of teh WORD "terror". Still, the man should not be President.
I lived trhugh Jimy Carter. Nope. Carter never LIED on somehting like this. I don't know of ANY President, in my lifetime, who I think lied on something this obvius and this IMPORTANT. How can ANYONE vote for a man--President Obama--who is FALSELY blaming the death of our ambassador on a VIDEO, when tit wsa actually an ATTACK on the United States? I now. There are also those reportes in the past few days that more secirty ws REQUESTED for the consulate in Libya, and that the Obama Administratin had failed to take the reqeusts seriusly. Should the Obama Adminstratin have done more to protect our consulate, and our ambassdor? Almost surely so. But, to a degree, this is HINDSIGHT. The attemt to seep the whole thing under a rug, and "balame' it all on a n anti-Mulsim video, is the INEXCUSABLE part of this. Seriously, I will be ashamed of our country if we reelect Obama as Persident of the Unitd States. Does that mean I will be ashamed of myself, since my vote for Gary Johnson will be regarded by at lest one of my other brothers aas a vote for Obama? Maybe so. If so, I iwll have to live with that shame. But I culd never live wwith myself if I voted for Obama. I caN't even conceive of a eprson doing that, except for an extreme PARTISAN (me being an independent--see previous article)
One of my borthers--not the same one mentined in the previus paragraph--tod me tonight that "ll politicians lie". That is, of curuse, true, as to the reality of their own political ositions. However, I don't think it is quite true that Presdients routinely lie abut matters so imporant as the fACTS concerning a DEADLY ATTACK on a U.S. ambassador. To me, this MAGNITUDE of lie is a new experience. And if politicins Do hthink this is just another acceptable political lie, then we need to TEACH THEM OTHERWISE. if this is apart of the 'politics as usual" that I have been telling you is unacceptable, it is jsut more evidence of how right I am. Nope. The idea that it is ACCEPTABLE for a President of the United States to LIE about something like this is UNACCEPTABLE to me. I will never forgive the man (Obama).
Lyndon Johnson? Richard Nixon? Jimy Carter? Gerald Ford? Bill Clinton--yes, Beill Clintn? George H. W. Bush? George W. Bush (despite Iaq and "weapons of mass destrucitn")? I lived hrough the Prresidencies of them all--essentially as an adult. No. I don't think AnY of them was CAPABLE of the kind of LIES that Obama haS told on Libya, for POLITICAL reasons. Nixn? Dishoenst, yes. Johnson? Again, dishonest. Carter was really pretty honest, but STUPID. George W. Bush? I would say about as honest as n ordinary politican, as I have never been convinced he was aware that he was "misrepresenting" Iraq's "weapons of mass destructin". Bill Clinton? As dishoenst as they come. But it wss, and is, my judgment that Bill Clinton would NEVER hve put out the kind of lies that Obama has on Libya. Is it really "onesty", or were these named Presidents just SMART enough to know that this kind of lie is ridiculous? It amounts to the same thing, and we will never know. All I know is that it is my judgment that NO Preisdent I have seen, except Barack Obama, wuld have LIED about this attack in Libya being the result of a "spontaneus demonstratin" that did not even hapen--"blaming" it all on a "video" as a matter of political narrative.
"But, Skip, maybe Obama is so wrapped up in his own fantasy world that he is jsut not interested in facts--does not even want to be bothered with facts abut the death of an American ambassador, when the anti-Islam video fit his long-time narrative so much better?" And yu think this kind of "honesty" makes it MORE acceptable for Brack Obama to be the most dishonest Presdient to ever serve as President of the United States? See future article son this subject, if you dubt me on this. But, on Libya alone, if Obama lives in a FANTASY WORLD this powerful, then he has no business being Presdient of the United Sttates. He shuuld not be, and I cn'at believe any reasonable person can support the man.
P.S No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I sand by my assertin that even Bill Clinton (or any other preivus Presdient I named) would NOT have tried to deceive the American peole on somethign like this. Sure, the line between what is "politics as usual" for someone amoral like Clinton (or others named), and what is unacceptable, is not an easy line to draw. And I submit we shuuld start drawing the line muc more in faovr of HONESTY. But I don't care where you draw the line,, unless you are willing to terat the killing of an American ambassdor as a political event: Obama's tissue of LIES on LIibya is UNACCEPTABLE. Tha t is not a matter of politicas, but of the basic DECENCY and HONESTY (on truly important things) that we must expect from a Presdient of the United States.