Strong Benhazi Ad Spiked by Romney, Liberal Sheep Still Bleat: "Partisan!"

By Proof

One of the spurious charges that liberals and Democrats are offering up, in lieu of actual facts, is the notion that somehow the situation at Benghazi is just a partisan, political witch hunt. A "Gotcha" attempt by Republicans to smear Democrats. Let's look at that, shall we?

First we have the evidence of the dog that didn't bark, as illustrated in the ad above. Romney had the opportunity to hold Obama's feet to the fire on Benghazi and decided not to. He said it was because he wanted to focus on the issue of the economy. However, given the vicious attacks from the MSM jumping all over him for his justifiable criticism of the State Department, through the embassy in Cairo, who issued an apology to offended Muslims after the incident in Egypt, the US was not responsible for, and given the tag team approach of the media with Candy Crowley siding erroneously with Obama during the second presidential debate, Romney may have believed it was the better part of valor not to press the issue.

Before the election, low information voters were bleating that Benghazi was nothing more than a political ploy to "get Obama". Now that that election is well behind us, the same liberal sheep are bleating that Benghazi is nothing more than a political ploy to "get Hillary". This, despite the fact, that one of the primary whistleblowers is a Democrat who voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary and Obama twice in the general. (Hopefully in different years!)

On Fox News Sunday this AM, Democrat congressman Adam Smith (absolutely no relation to the Smith of the "invisible hand"), tried to belittle one of the aspects of the Benghazi cover up, the so called "talking points" memo from the CIA. Congressman Smith tried to trivialize it as "just a memo", as if this memo had not undergone twelve revisions scrubbing all mention of Islamic terrorist and al Qaeda, as if the White House had not denied that such edits had taken place, and as if the final result, promulgated by Susan Rice on all five Sunday talk shows, the President at the UN and Hillary, over the flag draped coffins of the dead, had not all mislead the American people with a big lie. A big lie which also flat out contradicted the Libyan president, on national television.

It's more than "just a memo". If this were a Republican administration, Smith might be calling this a "smoking gun". It is evidence of a cover up of the other two scandals of Benghazi, that repeated warning were given and repeated requests for added security were denied at the highest levels of our government. The "inconvenient truth" that seems to elude so many liberals is that criticism of failures in any administration will of necessity be all of the same party, which doesn't mean it is "partisan". Show us the Republicans responsible for the incompetence and malfeasance in Benghazi, and we will criticize them, too!

Which brings us to lame defense #2: The Republicans did it. How many times have you heard this one? The Republicans and the sequester cut back the budget so badly there was no money for security. Except, that isn't true either. The State Department admitted it wasn't budget cuts that caused the breach in security. Indeed, the State Department had millions of dollars for embassy art and charging stations for electric cars...it wasn't a lack of money that doomed Chris Stevens. It was will.

President Unicorn was proclaiming that al Qaeda was beaten. After all, he'd almost personally killed bin Laden, hadn't he? Terrorism against the US was not part of the President's narrative as to why he should be re-elected. Plus, he had made a speech to the Muslim world telling them that with nasty George Bush out of the way, we could be friends! Barry understood Muslims. Barry turned NASA into a Muslim Self Esteem center. He'd lived in Indonesia. The Muslim world would be singing Kum-bay-ah with us in no time. And we certainly wouldn't want to offend our Libyan hosts by sending a military presence to our embassy. That would imply that we didn't think our host country could provide proper security! That would be insulting! (Despite the fact that every other Western nation and NGO had gotten out of Dodge because of increasing terror attacks.)

No, the fact that several high ranking officials of one administration were involved in a cover up of incompetence or malfeasance (or both) is not "partisan". Was Watergate "partisan" because only Republicans were involved? How many Democrats were prosecuted??

There were any number of breaches of common sense and professionalism leading up to the attack in Benghazi. There are huge holes in the testimony of the whereabouts and actions of the Commander-in-Chief's failure to send any sort of aid or support during the attack. There have been countless lies told about the nature of the attack by the highest levels of this administration.

The families of the dead deserve an answer. The American people deserve answers. Maybe if one of the whistleblowers could 'come out' as gay, the president might rush to a phone to communicate the answers he has been hiding from the American public all these months.

As Bob Schieffer* famously said on his Sunday show, "This is a story that just won't go away."



*If you ever get a chance to hear the video where he said it, tell me if you think his tone of voice was one of admiration or annoyance? Or maybe both...



Hat tip for video: The Lid



Cross posted at Proof Positive

5 comments:

  1. If Jay Carney thought he could make this story go away, then it will. Until then, it will be right where it should be, on the front burner, with no respite for the cook and his sous chef!
    No matter what happened in Benghazi, the most unforgivable sin was Obama's refusal to act the President, emerge from his hidey hole, and do the job he was elected and paid to do. He refused.
    There is lots of collateral damage here, and it will be interesting to see how many bodies will be under the bus before this is over. To have three people actually come forward and willingly testify, is huge. I am grateful.
    This investigation could be a cakewalk compared to what BO might have hanging over his head: retribution from another source.
    The irony is that Hillary was so eager to jump in and prosecute Nixon for Watergate. I don't think she ever considered that she herself could quash her own chances at the Presidency so many years later, by committing a coverup. But then, what difference does it make?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have pointed out before, there are three scandals, IMHO, or at least three different aspects of the Benghazi scandal, none of which have been adequately answered. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. I can understand Obama's reluctance to crawl under the bus himself and join all of the people he's thrown there!

      Delete
    2. Here, here! Benghazi has so many things wrong with it that it should count as three different scandals
      -mismanaging a bad situation during the attack
      -misleading the public on why the attack occurred
      -covering up their lies with more lies.

      Delete
  2. What's New? ALL politics are PARTISAN.

    When the OTHER side engages in it BAD. When YOUR side does so GOOD.

    And the beat goes on...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, I think Benghazi is MUCH worse than what has thus far passed as a scandal. It is not about partisanship, it is much worse.

    The president sent men on a $40 mil. mission that went south, so he left them there to die to ensure the truth would never be known. They were Gosnelled.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.