Wednesday, October 24, 2012


We now know that within hours of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya (which resulted in the murder of our ambassador and three others), the State Department had sent an e-mail to the White House Situation Room explaining that a terrorist group had already taken responsibility for the attack. Another e-mail says the consulate was under mortar fire (mortars are not something your average protester  usually carry around). In other words, within hours of this terrorist attack our government knew for a fact that this was not a spontaneous protest due to anger over a video!

In the days that followed, Secretary of State Clinton, UN Ambassador Rice, and even President Obama repeatedly blamed the attack on some American who had the audacity to exercise his first Amendment right to freedom of speech. Over and over and over they publicly condemned this man. He was even called in for questioning by the FBI. Weeks later, VP Biden was still blaming the video in his debate with Ryan.

And it was all a lie (well, OK, I find it possible to believe that Biden didn't really know it was a lie).

Democrats, of course, would have us believe that the information never reached Obama. So what are we supposed to believe? That President Obama was so busy meeting with celebrities that those in the Situation Room didn't want to disturb him?  Or that whoever was in charge of the Situation Room was so unbelievably incompetent that he didn't think a terrorist attack on our consulate was important enough to pass along?  If so, why hasn't someone been fired yet?

Apparently, the real problem was that it just wouldn't look good to have a terrorist attack against Americans just days before the election--especially since the consulate had pleaded for extra security and was denied. It looks as though the White House propagated a deliberate campaign of lies and deception to mitigate the damage to President Obama's campaign.

In my opinion, this cover-up is much, MUCH worse than Watergate (no one died in Watergate). If Obama doesn't step down and is re-elected, he should be impeached.


St. Lee said...

I wouldn't hold my breath for impeachment. Back in the 1990's didn't this nation determine that a President lying, even under oath, was NOT an impeachable offense?

Dennis said...

You're right. These days it seems like even refusal to uphold (or enforce) the Constitution of the United States isn't an impeachable offense even though upholding the Constitution is part of the oath of office. Before too long--especially if we reelect this President--U.S.S.R. will stand for United States Socialist Republic.

professor ed said...

As I wrote you in an earlier poem, the following bears repeating, as it certainly applies to Benghazigate:
Obama tried
Obama denied
Obama lied
People died

That's it in a nutshell.