Saturday, October 20, 2012
The ultimate comeback for Obamas "we got Bin Ladin" is pretty simple. By we are you talking about SEAL team 6, who your administration leaked participated in the OP and who were targeted by terrorists and later killed in retribution? Or by we are you talking about the doctor that media reports say helped us who is now being held in Pakistan because again your administration leaked?
The real scandal is not that Obama and team lied about a video and a protest for a couple of weeks, that is pretty bad and a real breach of trust. The bigger scandal is also not that he didn't give our ambassador enough security; it shows bad judgement, but the larger scandal is why he was in denial about security in Libya, The real scandal is that he thought the terrorist were his friends simply based on the logic that they should in his mind be his friends and the fact or the reason that he thought they would be his friends is the real scandal; He thought that he was "calming the seas" in the Mid-East, similarly to the way he had promised to lower the seas' level, and a big part of that was his "lead from behind" doctrine. The "lead from behind" doctrine said if we just helped the terrorists to get their own country by using air-power to overthrow their brutal dictator, in this case Gaddafi, then they would go from targeting us to being our ally. The problem was that they were never going to be our ally, not even the way Gaddafi had become our ally after 911 (anyone not actively aiding those shooting at us in "The Dust-bin of History" is an ally) The killing of our ambassador is too big to bury so they needed a distraction, they needed a minor scandal that would only lose them the angry white male vote, a vote they had given up on already. This is why they lied about the video and especially why they had two women do most of the lying; to make the scandal about two women lying about the video would make the angry white males even madder, but it wouldn't hurt their womens' vote as bad as if more attention was drawn to the fact that the reason the terrorists were in control of the streets of Benghazi is because Obama, by himself, and against the will of the congress, used our airpower in an illegal manner. He promised (he bet) that the terrorists would become our grateful allies. Everyone knew they were terrorists (see the news reports at the time) but Obama put everything on this goodwill gesture, which he did on his own without the approval of congress. This approval and support would have been critical if this theory was a good theory because it was essential to the success of this operation that the US be there to make sure that the democratic forces ended up in control. The American people would never have gone for another ground-war another nation-building, but Obama did it anyway when everyone else would have said "Ok, pretend you kill Qaddafi; then what"? but Obama who believes his own speeches, those soaring speeches with the god-like reverberation bouncing off the Greek columns, never stopped to consider that his speeches, his act, and even his underlying ideology are as phony as the Greek columns that his faked-up voice is bouncing off of. We have suffered under this for four years; we are blessed that it has all been laid bare at the same time in October rather than after the election. The question now isn't whether we can use this to beat Obama in the election, the question now is if we can hold the media accountable for this as well.