neo-neocon:
So, in President Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly Obama mostly bobbed and weaved and evaded answering questions in any meaningful manner. But he also doubled down on his lie on Benghazi, the one that had surfaced with some fanfare in the second debate with Romney.
To O’Reilly:
“When someone is attacking our compound, that is an act of terror and that’s how I characterized it the next day,” Obama said during the live sit-down broadcast from the White House during Fox’s Super Bowl pre-game show.
Obama knows that he will never be fact-checked on this in a way that will matter (bloggers and the right will do it, but the MSM will back him up), and that most people (including those in the MSM) will just allow it to pass into the realm of “things generally thought true.” Wasn’t that settled during the debate, when “moderator” Candy Crowley (who showed a distinct lack of moderation) leapt in to assert that yes, indeed, Obama had called Bengahzi an act of terror the day after it occurred, in his Rose Garden speech?
Anyone who wants a thorough analysis of exactly what Obama said and why it’s the case that he most definitely did not call the attack an act of terror—and just how strange Crowley’s actions in that debate were—please read this, this, and this.
But the larger issue is that we’ve all grown very used to Obama’s lies. Does anyone, including his most avid supporters, expect him to tell the truth anymore? But not all lies are created equal, and most politicians tell lies about something or other, some minor and some major. So what seems different about Obama, besides the volume and variety of his lies?
It’s one thing to lie about something hidden or secret, something that’s hard to ascertain. Is Obama lying, for instance, about how well he knew Bill Ayers back in his Chicago days? Almost certainly, but we don’t know, and we’re almost certainly never going to really know the full extent of their relationship. Is he lying about whether he actually believed that Americans would be able to keep their doctors under Obamacare? A bit easier to ascertain, but not so very easy because we have to assume he had enough knowledge of what was in the bill and how the regulations were going to operate in order to assume he deliberately lied (which he almost certainly did). Did he know about the IRS targeting of the Tea Party? Again, we have to assume that people told him, or that he directed it himself, and that he’s covering up that knowledge.
Obama is a typical Marxist, willing that things will be the way he wants. Expecting that his whim will be enough to make it reality. Zero experience in anything and expecting things to work as they think they should, is a sign of the good Marxist. Of course Obama tends to miss the cold hard fact that Marxism is a abject failure, but he’s a true believer that if he gets enough sparkly unicorn dust it’ll work just fine. Here is an excellent article on it. canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60875
My real objection to that sentence is the word “anymore’ Obama has never told the truth about anything. He’s not about to start now. I watched the show and his response to that question was very humorous, he ‘bobbed’ and ‘weaved’ and tried to make out like the whole thing was a joke and that he knew it was a terrorist attack all the time. Never mind that his whole staff still basically maintain that they told the truth all the time because they believed it when they said it. A bunch of clowns.
@UpChuck.Liberals:
He is who they have been waiting for……