Obama's Shameful Libya Mess

Obama is a law school graduate. He knows, or should know that, as commander and chief, he knew, or should have known, about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans including our ambassador.

It is clearly obvious that he is lying about not knowing what was going on. His pathetic protestations of ignorance about what happened that night are no defense at all for his incompetence.

If he did know, and then did nothing to help those who were clearly in harm's way and at obvious risk for the loss of their lives, that alone is ample grounds for impeachment. Protecting our citizens from attacks is job one.

If he didn't know, that fact, by itself is a clear, compelling reason that he should be removed from his office on November 6th. We can't have a president so clueless as to border on imbecility. The choice for November 6th couldn't be clearer!

Obama's Debate Feint

Boxers know well the tactic of setting up their opponents with feints. If they can get them to try to counter a false move, it might open them up for a roundhouse punch that could knock them out and thus win the fight. Obama was already on the ropes when he came up with his attempt to take out his opponent with one big punch. The tactic failed.

Shortly after the topic of Libya came up Obama said: "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror".(He actually said "acts of terror," but the difference is slight.) Romney, then incredulous, questioned if he had in fact used those words. As it turned out, he had. And the left has been trying ever since to make this one blip into a great victory for Obama. Only one problem: Obama, after the Rose Garden speech, never used the words "terrorist attack" again. He doggedly avoided these terms to label the event, even when pressed to do so. Why? What would have been so bad if the president had admitted what every thinking person already knew? They were terrorists attacks. Why not just admit it? But he and his minions didn't. They went out of their way to tell a false story about video outrage.

While it is impossible to know for sure what the person who wrote this Rose Garden speech for the president really had in mind, the case can be made that he was referring to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers that occurred in 2001 when he said acts of terror. He had been talking about those attacks just before. Obama's subsequent repeated statements give much credence to this opinion since after this Rose Garden speech, Obama and his surrogates universally referred to the Libya attacks as a spontaneous reaction of outrage engendered by a Youtube video. Obama himself referred to this video in the context of causing the embassy attack no fewer that 5 times at the United Nations. Ms Rice, his surrogate, went on several TV talk shows that Sunday and reiterated the administration's view that this murder was the result of a rag-tag group of demonstrators being upset by an obscure video and its portrayal of Mohamed. It wasn't until about two weeks later, when the evidence was insurmountable that the terrorist attack had nothing to do with a video, but rather was an organized, well-calculated and well-planned attack involving rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. At this point the Obama administration was finally forced to admit that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration about a video but was in fact a terrorist attack.

But the question remains as to why the president first used the words "acts of terror" and then obstinately refused to characterize the attacks as terrorist attacks? What was to be gained by refusing to use the term "terrorist attack" to describe the murder of our ambassador and three other americans on American Soil? The Obama crowd were all-to-ready to label Mr. Romney's response to these same events as "politicizing" the death of Americans. Mr. Romney's well-reasoned, and presidential statement about these events was, in fact, a heart-felt effort to reach out to the families, followed by an understandable denunciation of the Embassy in Egypt apologizing to the terrorists for our national tradition of allowing our citizens to make videos, even when they might be offensive to some.... it's called free speech.

The fact is, Obama refused to admit this was a terrorist attack, and perpetuated the lie about the video for one reason and one reason only: politics. One can imagine the chagrin his handlers must have endured when they heard him utter the words "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden. They must have admonished him to never say those words again. The thinking must have gone along these lines: "We can't admit we have been attacked by terrorists. We have spent millions carefully cultivating the image that, due to your great leadership, you have throttled Al Qaeda, and killed Osama. We need the American people to think you are invincible and we are not susceptible to any terrorist attacks." Talk about politicizing the event! This is the king of politicizing! And the same people who encouraged the president to steadfastly hold on to his lie about the video accused Romney of playing politics with the terrorist attacks! Romney said what Obama should have said, and he said it first. It is sad really.

Of course Obama won't be able do duck Mr. Romney's recitation of his and his spokespersons's repeated parroting of their outrageous lie at every turn when they meet again next Monday. You almost have to feel sad for Obama. He can't hide from the path he has chosen.

One Down, Two to Go

Obama's performance last night was so poor even his surrogates in the media couldn't save him. They didn't dare even try for fear of sounding absolutely ridiculous. He was terrible. Rest assured that if Obama improves his performance, even if ever so slightly in the next two debates, the left-wing news media will declare Obama the new Phoenix come back from the ashes.

Romney, for his part, needs to do whatever it takes to cement his image as a principled conservative executive who has what it takes to undo the titanic mess the hopefully soon-to-be-replaced president has created.

One of the commentators made the point that Mr. Romney appeared to be a teacher in the debate and Mr. Obama a callow student. A more apt metaphor might be Romney as CEO, Obama as a Jr. Executive called on the carpet to be fired for committing too many blunders and breaking too many promises. Romney was explaining to the failed Jr. that he can no longer tolerate the faux pas since they threaten to bring down the whole enterprise. "Mr. Obama, you record as an executive is abominable. You have not kept any of the promises you made when you were promoted. You have recklessly spent scarce resources and amassed a unacceptable debt, with no positive results. You have created a negative atmosphere for all concerned. You have taken too many vacations when you should have stayed at your desk.... and YOU'RE FIRED!

A Debate Forecast

Republicans never seem to learn that they can't trust the leftist media. It boggles the mind how naive they are about it: The leftists at NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and yes Fox will always cover for Obama no matter what and they will always attack Mr. Romney no matter what. For that reason, no matter what is said during the upcoming debate, Obama wins. The press will see to it.

Several questions need to be asked. 1. First why did the Republican National Committee agree to have the leftists control all three debates? Why did they allow them to pick the moderators, forums, topics? Didn't they know they would be biased in favor of Obama? 2. Why bother to have Mr. Romney show up at the debate at all when it is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama, after the press declares it so for about a 24 hour news cycle, will be the winner. This will be proclaimed by all the non-partisan commentators such former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos who has proclaimed the democrat the winner of almost every debate in the history of debates. 3. Instead of forcing Mr. Romney to appear at an unfair, and impossible-to-win debate, why doesn't the RNC just buy several half-hour blocks of TV time to allow Romney to address the American people directly. This would allow him to make his points without the leftists being able to interrupt and attempt to get him flustered.

It's a no-win situation. Why not just skip it?