Let’s face it, most Americans expect our politicians to lie. At least about the little things. Typically politicians try to keep things opaque so that they can easily massage the historical record once things don’t work out or the winds change. “I’ll put America back to work”. “I’ll bring home jobs.” “I support a fair tax system.” “I support education & women’s rights.” The less precise that a politician’s statements, the fewer people they will alienate, and in an American political universe of negative campaigns, that often seems to be the road most traveled. We expect them to lie about little things, but be aboveboard about the big, important things.
Then there is Barack Obama. News came out this week that provided confirmation that the Obama administration lied to the American people about Benghazi. On September 16, 2012 Susan Rice made the rounds of five talk shows telling the nation the attack on Benghazi that took the lives of 4 Americans was the result of spontaneous protests in response to an anti Islamic YouTube video. To many people that seemed absurd, but some were unsure and were willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. When it became clear that that narrative was simply false, the administration claimed that the talking points were directed by the State Department and the CIA. On Tuesday that was proved a lie as an email from the White House addresses Benghazi specifically in terms of blaming the video and not terrorism or policy failures.
This fits a pattern for this White House. And what makes it so perfidious is that it’s not to protect the country, but rather to save Barack Obama’s political skin. Again and again they have lied to the American people about big things, important things. And it’s gotten worse over time. At first it was passing of Obamacare, something sufficiently incomprehensible that Nancy Pelosi said “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it.” Barack Obama promised If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and If you like your insurance, you can keep it despite the fact that the administration knew that to be specifically false.
Then it was using the police power of the government, embodied by the IRS, to seek to shut down the voice of their opponents. Certainly Americans would not be surprised that political opponents of a president sometimes find themselves being audited. But this was much more than auditing. This was the government seeking to use its power to muzzle opponents by limiting their ability to raise funding. And of course Barack Obama assured the American people that there was nothing political going on. In a free nation is there any more pernicious act than a government using its police power to repress its opposition? No. In America where we spend about as much on political campaigns as we do on chewing gum annually, even a modest limitation on the spending of your opponents can pay handsome rewards.
And now the most treacherous if not traitorous thing of all is the abject manipulation of the truth about the death of a US Ambassador in order to sway an election. We now have proof that six weeks before the 2012 election the White House manipulated the media and the message related to Benghazi for the specific purpose of supporting the illusion of Barack Obama’s foreign policy competence and his claim that al Qaeda was on the run and had been “decimated”.
So the question is, now that the election is over, what’s next? We already know from his own message to Putin that he believes he has greater flexibility now. Since there is no pending election through which the American people might put him in the unemployment line, what limits exist? He has pushed the envelope from taking away liberties to oppressing opponents to lying about his administration’s responsibility for the loss of life of a US Ambassador and three others. It’s not likely that he can get a repeal of the 22nd Amendment through, but one has to wonder, could he or would he manufacture some crisis that would cause the election of 2016 to be postponed? Perhaps indefinitely? Is it possible that the DHS might use events like the one down in Nevada with Cliven Bundy and his supporters to implement some sort of unprecedented nationwide emergency powers to battle people the DHS already considers potential terrorists… You know, like veterans or anti-abortion activists or border enforcement types? Is it possible that he could fall back on his community organizing skills to inflame his supporters to occupy government buildings around the country and demand changes as the students did at Columbia in 1968?
Sure, this might sound farfetched, but we’ve covered a lot of ground towards fascism over the last six years. No one gets elected in a democracy saying “I want to take away your rights” although they often do get elected saying they are going to take away someone else’s. Once they have their hands on the reins of power however, particularly of the DOD and DHS, it’s only a president’s integrity and appreciation for America’s greatness above their own that keeps him from seeking to manipulate the levers to extend his stay. (Remember, Nixon left without putting up a fight beyond the courtroom.) With Barack Obama, a man with little compunction about lying, an ego that makes Donald Trump look like a wallflower and who has both a disdain for the Constitution and a love affair with Executive Orders, I find myself a little concerned about the potential for a contrived American version of the burning of the Reichstag.
See author page
There is a massive tide building against him and his ilk. Some boneheaded action will trigger a push back that will drive him and many of his supporters from office once they push the American people too far. The standoff at the Bundy ranch was one shot away from that push back. The problem is that they will not know that they went too far until it is too late.
I will then have to say I am an anomaly. I do NOT expect my representative to lie to me.
I have said before, Biden would make an excellent van der Lubbe.
I wonder who got to the maker of the video, The Innocence of Muslims?
Here is an amazing quote from this man, Mark Basseley Youssef:
All Americans should know why this is BS.
The President is ONLY the ”commander in chief of the MILITARY, not of the civilians of the country.
Mr. Youssef has gone quiet.
And, if this quote is any indication, it is based on pressure put on him illegally.
Americans have a right and privilege to criticize the president and his policies.
I really hope Trey Gowdy puts Mr. Youssef in front of the committee.
And note, “The government got me a credit card.”
Does the government give a credit card to EVERY person who leaves prison? Or just this guy to both keep him quiet and know where he is at any time?
This also dovetails with the two stories from Lara Logan’s source.
Apparently CBS decided that the version she gave them (with photos and documents) was ”false” based on the fact that he made a statement to Obama’s investigators that differed from it.
But what proof is there that Ms. Logan’s version wasn’t the true one, and he helped a cover-up when gov’t investigators led him through his testimony?
There is no proof either way!
Will Rep. Gowdy be able to get to the bottom of this man’s two versions?
This morning I am hearing about a six page email from the White House that State is with-holding for reasons of executive privilege. Some are saying the email clearly proves political reasons were behind the crafting of the Susan Rice talking points. The truth was suppressed because it might have cost Obama too many votes in the up-coming election. The truth would have mean Obama re-arranging his own stump speeches, too. Al Qaeda was clearly NOT on the run.
Hopefully Rep Gowdy will get to the bottom of this, too.
Vince, we the people of America, indeed the people of the world, are coming to grips with the level of dishonesty and incompetence displayed by Obama and his stooges; at what point will he be given a vote of “No Confidence?” When you lose the respect of the people you govern and become an object of derision and indifference among the national leaders of the world, you will no longer be able to effectively govern.
Without the compliant press, this phase would have passed months ago; now, Obama and his progressive loyalists and compliant media are grasping for straws to stay relevant, but their battle has become a forlorn hope, it is only a matter of time.
In a more realistic world, one not directed by a compliant media, we would probably know of innumerable instances of corruption and lies concerning issues that are not as significant. Nixon’s plot to burglarize , the resultant coverup, and his effort to politicize the IRS were considerably less significant and numerous; the difference being, he had no compliant media to insulate his criminal activities from the public.
America is in a precarious position when its media, in nearly all its forms, operates strictly as a propaganda organ for this president. We are left with the questions: Have they been jaded in the past and to what degree did they distort the news and create political messages within shows and print? Will they continue on this path of corruption or realize the foolishness of their direction, since they are losing their audience as the public becomes aware of the dishonesty?
We of the alternative media have come to the conclusion that the MSM is composed of ideologues. They will not change until they are ready to go bankrupt, and that might not happen because of the mega rich who support the message of Socialism.
The alternative media is in its infancy. There are fortunes to be made as the media is refined and developed in ways that even Google and Microsoft cannot predict. It is here that we must contribute and encourage; because we who offer honest unpadded opinions are winning the hearts and minds of the public struggling to overcome the intentional mental somnolence encouraged by the Obama Regime. The opportunities to rebuild confidence in media is here and we have the initiative. It’s true Huff and Media Matters have large audiences, but we don’t ask our readers to accept a uniform continuum of thought nor are we a continuation of the same reason Americans are abandoning the MSM.
@Skookum: When future historians write the obituary of our Republic, there will no doubt be different opinions as to when the decline began. They will also look for when the various seeds were planted. Given the power abuses, outright lying, and the taking of financial irresponsibility to new levels that define this administration and the complacency and complicity of those both from within (Congress) and without (the public, the MSM), this may very well turn out to be the turning point. As for the seeds, financially the New Deal would be a good place to start since that is what will have started the spending spree on programs we couldn’t afford down the road which will help lead to financial collapse. Socially, the seeds will have probably been planted in the ’60’s. Ironically, the period of time the seeds were planted would have been during the country’s peak years.
Obviously Obama won’t be impeached or probably even held accountable for Benghazi, or anything else for that matter, because enough people in this country hold him above the law. Watch how that changes should a non dem win the WH in 2016.
@another vet:
You don’t need to speculate how a Benghazi-like tragedy would be greeted by the American public and a Democratic Congress under a Republican President. You can simply look back and see for yourself. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html
@Tom:
Tom, in case no one has bothered to tell you, Reagan is dead. So you, and the New Yorker, are basically trying to beat a dead horse with the “yeah, but look what happened 30 years ago” b/s. It is nothing more than a diversion, a shell game, look over here and not at the bouncing ball over here.
Yet, does the New Yorker mention that Charlene Lamb, who worked directly under Patrick Kennedy, stated under oath that she denied the additional security requested by Ambassador Stevens, under direct orders of her superiors? When asked if it was a budgetary decision, as certain Democrats tried to imply, Lamb simply replied “No.”
Oh, and maybe you are too young to remember, or just too stupid to remember, but Tipp O’Neill was one of the most politically vicious Speakers in the history of our nation. To claim, or even think, that O’Neill was not after Reagan every day he held that gavel is simply a lie.
No one gets elected in a democracy saying “I want to take away your rights” although they often do get elected saying they are going to take away someone else’s.
Great insight.
Bill Burris: Zing!
Tom:
1983 was before w entered into a world of suicide and homicide defining middle-east conflict. The Beirut bombing was one of the beginning blasts and we were not up to speed on its meaning, causes or consequences.
After many travails, we got 9/11, and you would think after that and elevated world terror that the powers-that-be could maintain a decent watch on our diplomatic posts, especially those warning of impending danger.
…suicide and homicide bombings…
@Tom:
In Benghazi, Obama, never took any blame on himself, or his administratio,n or on his State Department. Nor did he point fingers at the actual perpetrators. No, instead the WH sent out Susan Rice as a proxy who in her talking points blamed it on an obscure little known and barely viewed video and it’s director, and then later lied again and claimed that the “video” talking point came from the CIA. Now we know that the CIA did not generate the false “protest over a video” story, and that the Intelligence agencies knew all along it was al-Qeda and that there were danger signs before. And we have a ‘smoking gun’ email that verifies the weak (and unsupported by fact,) “protest over a video” talking point originated from within the President’s administration team. Obama’s people also blamed the Republican House for not reinforcing the Embassy, but it was later learned that the decision not to increase security was made by the State Department who decided to use the funds elsewhere. We also know that the military was ready and able to send in support/response teams, but the State Department and White House would not authorize a “go” command. When finally questioned, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary tried to cavalierly blow off the investigation of the deaths as unimportant with her “what difference does it make.”
Show us where Reagen’s administration lied about the facts and instead blamed the Beirut attacks as a result of on an obscure film director. Show us where his administration lied for weeks on end telling the public the same cock and bull story. Show us where instead of launching a thorough investigation, Reagan’s White House arrested the previously mentioned Director to appease protestors elsewhere who had nothing to do with the Beirut attacks. Show us where Reagan’s administration refused to send in forces to render aid and secure the sites. Show us a Reagan Official who insolently testified before Tip’s Beirut committee that “dead is dead, and what does it matter why.”
@MAKAYA:
My point isn’t about the specifics of the incidents, it’s about the specifics of the responses. I could just as easily have cited 9/11 as an example of the public, the media and the political opposition not immediately, without evidence, pointing the finger at George W Bush. His approval rating following 9/11 was 80-92%, depending on the poll. It takes a lot of independents and Democrats to get to 92%. Public opinion eventually turned for a variety of reason, mainly Iraq, revelations about WMD, Abu Ghraib, Guantanimo Bay, war fatigue, etc.. And yes, eventually the Bush administration received criticism regarding the run up to 9/11 and whether it could have been foiled. But not the next day and only after a weighing of evidence. Bush, like Reagan, was given the benefit of the doubt initially. There was no monolithic partisan rush to judgement. Obama, on the other hand, was attacked regarding Benghazi immediately, before any information was available or any investigations undertaken. Not only was he blamed for the deaths of these men through personal incompetence, he was accused of indifference and even outright collaboration. The truth is this has been a fishing expedition right from the start: make a wild accusation; see if it sticks; move on and make another accusation. The internet is not a place to go for displays of personal responsibility, or mea culpas or expressions of remorse for being wrong. So it’s no shock that Benghazi fever continues to find new angles from those who have been factually proven to be wrong so many times in the past. The partisan nature of hatred is easily understood, but there is something pretty gross about the unbridled orgasmic excitement Benghazi engendered in many on the Right to have something substantial to pin on the President and/or Clinton. There was no “let’s wait for the facts” or “this is about the victims right now” or “the ones to blame are those who did this”. No, it was all about affixing blame here at home. It still is. And if you care to dispute that, first please check the archives of this blog for posts on 9/12/2012 and the days that followed. You tell me whether it’s crass or not to wield an image of a dead American hero’s corpse to score partisan points two days after he was murdered.
@Tom: ” Obama, on the other hand, was attacked regarding Benghazi immediately” No, he wasn’t. He was attacked once the obviously bogus lie of blaming the attack on the video was trotted out. That’s when the fireworks started.
Here is the significant difference between Bush and Obama in this regard: Bush was heavily criticized for the Iraq war. Reid even declared it lost on the Senate floor and the entire left and their partners in crime, the media, was in constant attack mode, making all manner of unfounded accusations. Bush, like Obama, was in the midst of a hard-fought Presidential campaign. However, Bush, unlike Obama, felt it more important to finish the job and win the war than campaign for reelection. So, Bush doubled down and enacted the surge, even though the war was growing unpopular. Obama, on the other hand, lied about his failure and ignored the disaster, tragedy and threats for the sake of his own campaign.
Bush risked his political future for the sake of winning the war on terror while Obama risked national security for the sake of his political future. It’s just that simple.
@Tom: “You tell me whether it’s crass or not to wield an image of a dead American hero’s corpse to score partisan points two days after he was murdered. ”
I’ll tell you what is crass. For every year from the beginning of the Iraq war, many newspapers printed lists of the war dead right before Christmas. Personally, while it is politically uncomfortable for whomever is C in C, I thought that was a nice gesture; honor the war dead and have thoughts of the loved ones at this most sacred time of the year. Tough, but a good thought.
However, Christmas of 2008 saw no such lists published. I realized this as I put my Christmas decorations away and came across a previous list that I was wrapping ornaments in. I checked the recent papers and… no list. So, is it crass to use these lists as a political weapon until the party you oppose is out of office? Is it crass to protest the war while the opposition is in office, then cease all protests (or the coverage) once YOUR party is in charge?
I had to think how the survivors must have felt when, suddenly, it dawned on them that the names of their fallen heroes were being used simply for political gain. Sickening and despicable.
And, yes, crass. THAT’s crass.
@Bill Burris:
Actually, Bill, that’s not entirely accurate, and it goes directly to my point. Many on the Left, including some of the most powerful voices in the “MSM” initially supported the invasion of Iraq. This includes the New York Times and The New Yorker, amongst many others. The support waned, and in some cases turned, only after revelations regarding WMD, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Some on the Left paid a heavy price for that support later on. The point is there was no knee-jerk partisanship taking precedence over national security. Obviously, it’s impossible to imagine a similar case with Obama. he would have been excoriated over 9/11 before the dust had settled. And I think you know this.
You can make that argument, but it goes to something outside the scope of my comment. Again, I’m referring to what I see as a dangerous level of hyper-partisanship on the Right. There used to be times when partisanship was placed aside, but that seems to not be the case anymore, not with this President. If I’m wrong, please provide an example.
@Tom: Once again, I beg to differ. For about 4-6 months after 9/11, there was much kumbaya in Washington, with singing on the Capital steps and lots of rallying around the flag. Then, the campaign season kicked in and it was all partisan, all the time. The same goes for the Iraq war, but without the period of kumbaya. Even though prominent Democrats voted for the war (supporting it before they didn’t) we had a steady stream of protests, accusations and partisanship. One media outlet even invented a story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet, causing a surge in violence.
No, there was no period of calm and collected thought or benefit of the doubt awarded Bush. Likewise, there was no hair-trigger assault on Obama over Benghazi, even though it was another in a long line of embarrassing foreign affairs failures, until he insulted the intelligence of everyone with the first of his excuses for how we were surprised on 9/11.
“The point is there was no knee-jerk partisanship taking precedence over national security.” That is absolutely what we witnessed and what we are witnessing. Falsely accusing our military and C in C of war crimes gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Covering up incompetence directly affects the ability of the public to intelligently choose the best candidate for our own leadership. It can be expected of the guilty parties to cover up their errors, but having the media aid and abet in the cover up (by non-coverage and false coverage) should be a high crime itself.
What appears as right wing partisanship only appears so because there is NO interest in getting to the facts by the left. They simply want the issues and the political electoral effects to go away, security, lives and costs be damned. I was younger then, but I do recall Republican interest in getting to the bottom of Watergate and seeing justice served. I recall a few Democrats supporting finding out if Clinton actually perjured himself before a grand jury. Now, however, Democrats simply want to cover up the droppings of the worst administration we have seen in our lifetimes, if not in American history.
It only seems partisan when only one group cares about the truth.
@Bill Burris:
Really, Bill?
@Tom: You cite an individual with his opinion (which, as it turned out, was absolutely accurate, wasn’t it?). I am talking about the entirety of the left wing media and the liberals in government attacking Bush once a, what must have seemed to them, respectable period of kumbaya had passed.
@Tom:
Why did the MSM’s continual reporting on casualties overseas cease once Obama was elected? Our brave service members were still being attacked and killed, the “collateral damage” of civilian casualties was ongoing, yet once Bush left office, the MSM stopped reporting these numbers. What’s more, the leftist press very rarely mentioned collateral damage from Obama’s drone attacks. Why are such deaths suddenly unimportant when it is a Democrat president in charge?