"And Barack Obama is an Honorable Man!"*

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Noble words, Mr. President! I've heard you utter them before...mostly trying to justify the passage of whatever ineffectual gun control legislation you're pushing. Do you really believe it, Mr. President? Did you believe it last September 11th. when you first got the word that our consulate in Benghazi was under attack?

"If there's even one thing we can do..." What exactly did you do, Mr. President?

"...if there's just one life we can save..." Was that your calculation on 9/11, Mr. President? "... pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe"?? Exactly which orders did you give that day as Commander-in-Chief?

"...we've got an obligation to try." Bingo! Now you know why so many people want to know what you did upon hearing that our consulate was under attack. Why they are insistent that you tell us. Most Americans know that we had an obligation to try. Not an option, an obligation. And nowhere does that obligation fall any heavier than on the Commander-in-chief.

So, do you really believe the words you spoke, the words you tweeted, Mr. President, or are they words...just words? Confession is good for the soul, Mr. Obama. Tell us what you did or didn't do that fateful day, September 11, 2012. It won't bring back the men who died, but their families and the American family deserve to know the truth of just exactly what you did to honor your obligation and American's obligation to those men.

If you could have saved just one life, you had an obligation to try. Hard to put it much plainer than that, sir. Now do the honorable thing, and not the political thing, for a change, for after all, you are an honorable man, right?

*With apologies to William Shakespeare



Cross posted at Proof Positive

26 comments:

  1. They are indeed "just words" Proof. That's all this president has in his bag of tricks; platitudes and rhetoric. And even that seems to have lost its luster with many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every time he brings up "if it saves just one life", I want someone to ask him if that's what he believed Sept. 11, 2012, and if he believed it, what'd he do about it?

      Delete
    2. Clearly he always means one specific life, the life of his political career/legacy.

      Delete
  2. Effing two-faced lying windbag!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His slack jawed, drooling admirers aren't much better. Can you imagine anyone positing that the only two options available to Obama were to fly there personally and "pull a Rambo", or go to bed early without doing anything, which is apparently what he finally did. Have they so little imagination they cannot conceive of anything in between, such as the Commander-in-Chief ordering a rapid response team, trained for such eventualities, to intervene on the behalf of US citizens in peril for their lives?

      Delete
    2. My question has always been: Did he really go to bed, or was he even in the building? This opens up a whole new idea, which is, if he was not there, where was he, with whom, and what was he doing? Don't you remember JFK leaving through the tunnel? How about Clinton? Maybe that is why we are getting no answers. That is why Ms Rice fell under the bus. Just color me a conspiracy theorist, or a woman with a racy mind.
      BTW Ema Nymton: And why not fly there even after the attack? The Ambassador was HIS man, his representative, and so were Woods, Smith and Dougherty. He didn't want to see what happened to his American Representatives? He flies to flood areas, to elementary school shootings. And don't give me that namby pamby answer of the vote thing.
      As a microcosm: America was attacked, its President was killed. Not only killed, sodomized then dragged through the streets and paraded for the world to see. This does not warrant a visit by our fearless leader?

      Delete
    3. There are too many unanswered questions about Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, and now a plethora of other scandals large and small. I do not believe it is unreasonable to demand accountability from those we elect to public office, particularly, the highest office in the land.

      Delete
    4. What makes your demand so difficult is that our past administrations had been based on a modicum of honor and American loyalty. This is no longer the case. The current administration is dishonest, corrupt and does not play by the same rules we "used to." Therefore, your demand will be ignored, sidelined, or whatever in the race to socialism by 2016. You/we have every right to be appalled and scared s******s.

      Delete
  3. .

    " What exactly did you do, Mr. President? "

    And why do you care, Proof? Did you want President Obama to pull a "Rambo" and fly Air Force 1 personally around the world _AFTER_ the attack was over?

    (The Benghazi attack consisted of military assaults on two separate U.S. diplomatic compounds. The first assault occurred at the main compound, approximately 300 yards long and 100 yards wide, at about 9:40 pm local time (3:40 pm EDT, Washington DC). The second assault took place at a CIA annex 1.2 miles away at about 4 am the following morning.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Reaction_in_the_United_States

    No matter how many time Murdoch Media/Fox Networks tell you, Mr Obama did not lead the attacks against the compounds. And no Sec of State Clinton was not driving any of the vehicles in Libya.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ema: Your drivel is irrelevant as ever. I care, because America shares an obligation to support those of her sons she puts in peril. Hindsight is 20/20. When Mr. Obama first learned of the attack, they had no clue (There's the Obama administration in four words!) how long the fighting would last. If you'd care to enlighten yourself about the three scandals of Benghazi, none of which, as you absurdly claim, had anything to do with Obama leading an attack or Hillary doing anything other than ignoring the security requests from the people they put at risk (and lying about it afterward), you can read more here: http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-obamas-chappaquiddick.html

      You clearly need to educate yourself, Ema, lest your ignorance becomes impenetrable.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama is no more honorable, or less honorable than many of his predecessors. But... ignoring this is certainly in the self serving interests in the rEpublican playbook.

    2016 may just be the most defining national election ever.

    If the nation is lucky candidates of the caliber and integrity of Johnson and Huntsman will end up in office of President and VP.

    Not likely and that is precisely because America is no longer interested in electing quality candidates with a proper vision. The game has about smoke and mirrors for quite sometime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your fixation with, (and habitual misspelling of) "rEpublicans" is duly noted. There ought not be any partisan politics in the Benghazi scandals. On my part there certainly is not. You may not have noticed, but Obama is not running for re-election, no matter how much he is out campaigning. I don't give a damn what party he is. When a president takes the oath of office, he assumes certain responsibilities. It's about justice. And possibly criminal negligence. And a cover up. It's not about who gets the biggest office and the biggest budget and the most pork. Maybe if you could stop viewing everything through your own provincial prism, and forget "playbooks", you might stumble across that? I don't consider the death of four Americans, with dozens more imperiled, accompanied with multiple lies to cover it up, to be merely a ploy in a "playbook". This is not a game.

      If you suppose along with the mindless, low information voters that Benghazi is about gaining some political advantage, then you would be equally as wrong as they. Barack Obama said, and here I agree with him, (even though I may doubt his sincerity), that if anything could be done to save even one life, we have an obligation to try. Which part of that do you disagree with?

      And if it is a moral obligation, does that not transcend politics? Or are you too busy with your own smoke and mirrors? BTW, I don't doubt Mr. Obama's moral sincerity because he is a Democrat. I doubt it because he appears to be a self seeking, craven and spineless coward.* If Obama "saw the light" and joined another party tomorrow, it would not mitigate his need to account for the way in which he handled his moral obligations.

      Perhaps you do not believe that our Imperial President ought to be accountable to the citizens of the US for the way he conducts himself in office, because "he won"? You would be wrong there as well. Out of curiosity, did you think that Teddy Kennedy had a moral obligation to try to save Mary Jo Kopechne? Or was that just somebody's "playbook", too?

      And the "honorable man" was a literary reference to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Act 3, Scene II. (Hint: Marc Anthony may not have been as sincere as he may have let on.)

      As to whether or not Obama may have been less honorable than many of his predecessors, as you say, may hinge upon an accounting of exactly what he did on September 11th, 2012 and what he did or did not order.

      Oh, and BTW, you shouldn't even joke about Huntsman! We still have to survive two and a half more dreadful years of Obama.

      *If there is another explanation of your actions on that fateful day, Mr. President, please feel free to speak your mind. You know exactly where you were and exactly what you did and exactly what you ordered that day. It does not need a committee or an investigation to uncover that. It only requires a spine.

      Delete
  6. Ah, my good Proof, a delightful response. Actually I agree with many of your more astute observations. Rather than respond to each and every line item I shall leave you with this...

    Truth is rarely, if ever found in the stronghold of the partisans. Rather it is to be found by thoughtful and honest analyisis of ALL sources of information followed by a rational determination as to the veracity of each.

    The process is like piecing together the parts of a puzzle. It does require a dispationate resolve and a burning desire to arrive at the full truth. Even when it does not serve the partisan proclivities we all have.

    The truth shall set you free.

    Thank you once again for your response. As to 2016, we'll just have to wait and see. The intentional "misspelling" of rEpublican and dEmocratic is for a reason. Sorry if you miss the reason for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Truth is rarely, if ever found in the stronghold of the partisans". And I defy anyone to find anything "partisan" in anything I have written about Benghazi. I see a lot that could be construed as partisan in the stonewalling and cover up that followed it. While it is true there may be partisans who demand an accounting for Benghazi, for partisan purposes, it does not follow that every demand for an accounting in the multiplicity of scandals involving Benghazi, is partisan. When Teddy Kennedy left May Jo Kopechne to die at Chappaquiddick, was it because he was a Democrat or because he was a a self seeking, craven and spineless coward? Must one be "partisan" to find fault with his actions (or lack thereof)?

      Delete
    2. Point taken with respect to TK. Was there ever a question?

      I find it interesting that you are focused on a, what was it, a 1969 occurance.

      There is plenty of partisan posturing on both sides with respect to Benghazi. Indeed it is so. As as been the case for as long as I can remember.

      I note those who are MOST partisan tend to recognize it the least. This applies to both sides of the issue.

      Delete
    3. You find it difficult to focus on events where a politician's inaction resulted in someone's death? I resent the inference that I am somehow being partisan in this and somehow unable to recognize it.

      There may be plenty of partisan posturing on both sides, but if you are unable to recognize true moral indignation, perhaps you are not the judge of character you presume yourself to be.

      BTW, if I picked an example any newer than 1969, would it make it any more of a true example? Those who fail to learn from history, after all, are destined to repeat it.

      Delete
    4. Not at all having problems Proof, not at all. I refer you back to my prior comment with respect to TK.

      As to presumptions, well, I am not the one getting indignant. I simply am one with an active mind, as AR would say.

      As to partisianship and who does or does not posses a store of it? Well, that is best left to the truly disspationate to decide. Of course I happen to be one of those. :-)

      In answer to the last, no. And yes Proof, those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. I am happy you recognize this. Judging from history it is apparent few do.

      Delete
    5. "I am not the one getting indignant." It's just so tiresome to hear the same lame argument all the time, that the only reason we criticize Obama is for partisan reasons. It's runs a close parallel with the other thing that liberals say when they have no argument: "It's because he's black." That's a favorite of Ema's. You two might be intellectual soulmates.

      As to "activity", a hamster on a wheel is active. Maggots on a corpse are "active". Activity alone does not necessarily connote the acme of achievement. But, whatever floats your boat!

      Delete
  7. .

    "It's just so tiresome to hear the same lame argument all the time, that the only reason we criticize Obama is for partisan reasons."

    (You do know, don't ya, the the compounds in Benghazi were "secret" CIA/State Department operations centers using diplomatic cover? They were setup to allow USA plausible deny-ability. The Ambassador was in Benghazi trying to enlist local groups to work with USA. (No contrary to MM/FN reports President Obama did not send the ambassador there.)

    In your case the only reason you criticize Obama is for partisan reasons; and for the shallowest excuses and in the most childish manner. It's just so tiresome to hear your same lame arguments all the time.

    You incessantly snivel that somehow it is always President Obama's fault. Your point in the OP was that you heard (Murdoch Media/Fox Networks) that President Obama did nothing because he did not care and that he went to bed instead of "doing something".

    May one suggest one get the facts straight before hysterically crying the sky is falling and its Mr Obama's fault.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The only reason you criticize Obama is for partisan reasons" And as always, Ema, you bring no evidence whatsoever to back up your mind drool. I could equally say that the only reason you argue with me is because I'm white and you're a racist. I have every bit as much evidence for that as your baseless allegations against me.

      All we are asking for is accountability for the lack of defenses in the consulate before the attack, and for Obama to account for his own actions and orders during the attack. It would also be nice to have an accountability for who spread the lies about the video in the aftermath of the attack, but that may be too much to ask for!

      Unlike you, who obviously takes his/her/or its talking points from the DU, Daily Kos and Puffington Host, I am quite capable of drawing conclusions for myself. I do not subscribe to the Fox cable channel, nor do I avail myself of broadcast television news or commentary , either Fox or the MSM, to any but minor extent.

      Your lame, tiresome "blame Fox because, as a liberal, Rupert Murdock puts my panties in a twist" is about as accurate as anything else you babble, which is to say, not at all. You can put your tin foil hat back on now, dear.

      Delete
  8. Proof, I hate to say it but the arguments of the far right are becoming quite circular. Reminding me of the far left.

    As for Ema and me being soul mates, well, LOL. Ema and I have very little in common when it comes to philosophy or politics. I'll let Ema address this obvious diversion by you Proof if she so desires.

    And yes Proof, just like the Ema's of the left you are purely partisan. Unfortunate for the nation that so many indeed cannot see the forest for the trees.

    It's all yours Proof, I've tired of the "wheel" you've set up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As well you should quit while you're behind (complete with resemblance). You've offered nothing in the way of evidence that I am in any way partisan about pursuing the truth about Benghazi other than an infantile, "If you're criticizing Obama you must be partisan" schtick. Perhaps it is the absence of references to any party that confuses you?

      If you are incapable of distinguishing moral outrage from political advantage, then, perhaps your moral compass is broken. Or non-existent. As far as circular arguments, you and Ema not only argue in a circle but appear to jerk that way as well.

      As far as your screen name, many of us are still waiting for the "rational" part. I guess you simply cannot see the forest for the trees?

      Delete
  9. A political cartoon from Gary Varvel... Obama on Gun Control: "If there's a step we can take to save EVEN ONE CHILD, we should take that step."
    Obama at Planned Parenthood: Never mind!
    [IMAGE] http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Avis=BG&Dato=20130426&Kategori=OPINION09&Lopenr=304260064&Ref=AR

    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.