Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, And The Press Complied

The recent fiasco in Libya and the manner President Obama’s media minions have abetted his deception provides an epitaph for the soon to be demised Obama administration:

Republicans have been trying to highlight the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy for weeks, but recognizing how damaging this episode was to Obama’s credibility, media coverage has been subdued. Who requested what security and when is important, but these things always appear obvious in hindsight.

Much more telling is the way our hyper-partisan press ignored how the administration initially attributed Bengazi to some YouTube video nobody watched. A fiction the press corps condoned. It took Team Obama two weeks before acknowledging this was a well orchestrated terrorist attack.

Blaming “The Innocence of Muslims,” yielded Obama an alibi. His foreign policy failings could be excused. For a president prone to apologizing to Muslims, this was perfect: it was America’s fault. If only those pesky Christians back home would behave, peace would come to the Islamic World.

Our UN ambassador Susan Rice repeatedly attributed the attack to a spontaneous protest erupting in response to the “heinous” film. Obama mentioned the movie six times in his own speech to the UN. He did this despite credible proof there had not been any protest. Libyan officials had already confirmed it as terrorism. Our enemies conducted a coordinated assault against a lightly guarded consulate on September 11th.

There were several interesting things that happened before and after Gov. Romney confronted Obama about his claim that he called the Benghazi attack a “terrorist attack” the next day.

I like almost everyone else in the country who had been following the developments for the past month was as shocked as Gov. Romney when Obama made such an easily disprovable claim.

Then when Obama persisted and told the moderator to “look at the transcript” and she held up a piece of paper like she had some sort of proof... it looked like some sort of collusion had taken place.

Then when the audience applauded when she sided with Obama and told Gov. Romney that he was wrong... it sounded like the audience wasn't so “undecided” after all. Apparently even the “first lady” was clapping and cheering.

Yet everyone watching at home who had been following this at all knew that it was an incredibly blatant lie, and that this was some sort of far bizarre trap that had been set which could only work with premeditated support and collusion from the moderator. I didn't think that it would fly even at MSNBC but when I watched some of their commentators after the debate they were going along with this farce... it was incredible to say the least.

While this disgusting rewrite of history now is quite popular among Obama’s base and has created some sort of unexplainable new narrative. It was obviously all part of a premeditated, malicious and intentionally misleading scheme. I doubt that it will actually be helpful in the least. Candy and whoever orchestrated this travesty including the president deserve some sort of punishment for cheating.

Despite progressive Dem "talking heads," their "pundits," and "useful idiots," "the People" are not stupid enough to buy the arguments being put out there by the "progressive" spinners--not even Crowley's "The View" comment that her involvement in the deception was "a semantic thing."

It was not a "semantic thing," for all across America honest people know the difference between deception and honesty when they see and hear it.

During the debate, the President claimed that questions or criticisms about his Administration's handling of security, and subsequent dissembling about the deaths of our Ambassador and others in Benghazi were "offensive" to him.

Is that not the very same word he used about complaints on the "leaks" which leading Intelligence Committee members of his own Party attributed to the White House? --that was "offensive" to him?

Perhaps he does not realize how "offensive" his Administration's lack of credibility is to his employers--"the People"!

"Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. This increases the difficulties ten fold; and those who pursue these methods, get themselves so involved at length, that they can turn no way but their infamy becomes more exposed. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." - See "Letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785," in Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1984), pp. 814-815.

". . . he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." - Jefferson

When a man stands before the world and makes claims which are as easily disproven as those made by the President, then, truly, "his infamy becomes more exposed."

The 5-minute Rose Garden statement was played on FOX Radio, and, in context, it reveals that both Crowley and the President might take Jefferson's warning to heart: "Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice."

Tuesday night, American voters saw the "chicanery," the "dissimulation," the "trimming," the "untruth," and the "injustice" attempted by avoiding the real question from the audience, and on November 6, both may see that the President did not "extricate" himself from the "difficulty" of his attempted misrepresentation and cover-up of a terrorist attack during his watch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.