I hate to pile on. I really do. But the Obama Administration's handling of the September 11th Benghazi terrorist attack is simply astonishing. And for some inexplicable reason, they insist on making it worse. They actually managed to dim the highly-anticipated vice-presidential debate with this issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Vice President Biden's dancing around the issue in the debate was o help at all; instead, it compounded the issue. Now it is the intelligence community's fault?
I don't know if President Obama is fully aware of the damage his campaign team is doing to his image personally and to the Office of the President. Frankly, part of me wishes he would come out and fire everybody and tell the American people he is as disgusted as we are with what has transpired. Sadly, though, it looks like he has been on board with this strategy from the beginning.
What is the strategy? Well, simply put, lying. Yes, I know that that is the unspeakable word in Washington. You can try to say it in many ways. You can say someone is not being truthful, they are deceiving people, they are not being candid, but don't dare call it a lie. People get offended. Well, this mess deserves no less.
And heads should roll.
After the debacle of blaming a YouTube video for the terrorist attack and having to come out now and admit what everyone knew from the beginning - that this was another terrorist attack aimed at our country on the anniversary of 9/11 - the Obama campaign’s behavior has been shameful.
Let's start with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on CNN's Piers Morgan. When questioned about the administration's handling of the Benghazi attack, she was offended at the suggestion that the public was misled, saying:
At the beginning of this it was very unclear what exactly happened and the main thing was to make sure, rather than to make snap judgments, that we take a step back, make sure that a full investigation is done. ...
But her own reasoning condemns the administration's actions. If a full investigation was needed so that we don't make "snap judgments," why in the world did the administration feel the need to make a snap judgment, not only saying, but stressing over and over to make sure the whole world knew that this was not a terrorist attack but a protest of a movie that just got out of hand? Why? There is no explanation, she is lying.
When you are investigating, you go out to the media and say, "We are assessing the situation at the moment and will make a statement once we have fully evaluated the tragic events that transpired today." Is that so hard? This is public relations, not rocket science. But the reality is that they were not waiting for an investigation; they wanted to control the media cycle, because they are in the middle of an election. That is why Ambassador Susan Rice was sent on a media tour immediately following the events to sell "the company" lie ... err ... line.
That is the only reason we are hearing from people like Miss Wasserman-Schultz and our next example, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. Why else would we have a campaign manager commenting on a terrorist attack? We have to remember that Miss Cutter's job is to spin things in a favorable way for her boss, President Obama. But what she told CNN is beyond spin.
The entire reason, ah, that, ah, this has become, the, the, you know, political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Seriously?! Have they no shame? The entire reason? Have they seen the pictures of the Ambassador Stevens' corpse being dragged out of the embassy? Have they heard the cry from the mother of State Department official Sean Smith, who has begged for some answers about her son's death?
But no, to these people, the appalling thing is Romney and Ryan. She actually calls them "reckless and irresponsible" for daring to challenge their disastrous mishandling of this situation. Wasserman-Schultz called Romney, Ryan, and her colleagues in Congress trying to find out what happened through hearings "un-American."
Lastly, I feel for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney; he has a tough job. But Carney cannot possibly defend what has happened, and his attempts are simply laughable. He's said it was the video. He's said it wasn't the video. He's said there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack. He's said there is evidence of a pre-planned attack. He's said it was spontaneous protests. He's said that it was a self-evident terror attack. He's said it had nothing to do with 9/11. He's said that we need more time. And he still doesn't rule out the video, today.
Things have gotten so bad that even the sympathetic mainstream media can no longer take the lies. In a recent press briefing, ABC's Jack Tapper asked a question focusing on President Obama's criticism of Romney's response to the attack that summarized the whole debacle and the reason why this issue is not going away. Nor should it.
Tapper: Given the fact that so much was made out of the video that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi, that there wasn't even a protest outside the Benghazi post, didn't President Obama shoot first and aim later?
It should be a simple question to answer at this point - if one were to be truthful about it. But that is a BIG "if" for the Obama spin machine, at least during campaign season.