Truly, my heart goes out to those literally millios of people affected by Hurricane Sandy. Very bizarre storm.
Al Gore's been out claiming it's related to Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they're calling it now. But look at it this way -- we've had the EPA for decades now. The US and much of Europe has been working to hinder Climate Change (or wharever.) And all that's resulted so far is the storms seem to be getting worse and more catastrophic -- maybe.
There have been plenty of horrendous storms in the past. And people just figured, "Oh well, that's the way it goes," not having a political agenda attached to it. Since the political agenda has been attached, somehow people like Gore believe we can "fix" the weather with legislation.
I'm not convinced. And if yuou care about empirical results, without looking too hard, the EPA, et. al., apparently is driving these massive storms. Cause and effect, no? Using the same sloppy and simple-minded reasoning of the tree-huggers. I mean, no Katrina or Sandy before the EPA, but now, every year. No?
Speaking about weather-relted political agendas, as mentioned before, the Comrade has been out and about in New Jersey with Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, letting storm victims cry on their shoulders and promising rainbows to come. Mayor Bloomberg, New York City, refused a presidential visit -- traffic is impossible as it is.
At any rate, so the Comrade has been all over the Jersey Shore, making political hay. And this may be the first time he actually showed up anywhere near where the action is.
He's almost making much of his "cooperating" with a Republican.
Never mind that New Jersey is about at democrat as it gets. Christie was only elected there because the dems screwed up the sate big time and they needed to bring a Republican in to ensure survival.
Anyway, so the Comrade is demonstrating -- and his campaign is touting -- how well he plays with others -- that is, Republicans.
At the butt-end of his administration he figures out the value of "cooperation." Whatever happened to his high-handed "my way or the highway"attitude that he's so damn famouis for blaming on Republicans? Does Harry Reid know about the shift in policy? May be time to loose the strings on that big bundle of bipartisan legislation that's piled up from the House over the last two years.
The Comrade is just doing what any president would do -- and that's a real shocker there. But perhaps it's getting too cold to play golf?
You can fool some of the people some of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time. That's from Abe Lincoln, and the Comrade might do well to ponder on that during the flight home from the White House in January. Not that that would stop him, though.
Save the Republic.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
In the wake of Sandy
Thoughts go out to the millioins -- literally -- of people affected by Hurricane Sandy, or post-tropical sub-hurricane Sandy, or whatever the government's decided to call it now. Can you picture them? "Hmmm, we've changed the names of everything else to confuse people. What can we call this thing?" Ordinary citizens are much smarter. They call it a hurricane.
Even when it reaches Chicago.
Really high waves here. I'd go over to the beach to check it out, but where I live, the beach is on the other side of a large sort of wilderness park, and I'm sure the entrance is blocked off. It was blocked off for a whole season last year when we had our deroche -- straight winds -- thing that knocked out our electricity for a week or more.
So the residents of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, etc -- they have my sympathy. And West Virginia, too, with two feet of snow. Life does not go on with no electricity.
Something to think about when pondering the shut-down of coal as a fuel by the EPA. As if the EPA can do a damn thing to change the climate. If the EPA wants to take credit for the apparenly huge and extremely destructive storms we've had over the past decade or so, while the EPA has been mandating and "fixing" things -- they can go right ahead. Otherwise, why not just shut your ugly regulatory face and find a real job?
Our best local weather guy, Tom Skilling, is on TV right now, giving the predictions. It's cold here -- probably in the 40s, if you live in Florida and consider that cold. Also windy here, and that could be a problem.
Very interesting, too, that Hurricane Sandy gave the Comrade the opportunity to "look presidential" during this last week before the election. Hey folks, don't you find it interesting that he's only "looked presidential" this last week -- out of four years.
You know what to do.
Save the Republic
Even when it reaches Chicago.
Really high waves here. I'd go over to the beach to check it out, but where I live, the beach is on the other side of a large sort of wilderness park, and I'm sure the entrance is blocked off. It was blocked off for a whole season last year when we had our deroche -- straight winds -- thing that knocked out our electricity for a week or more.
So the residents of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, etc -- they have my sympathy. And West Virginia, too, with two feet of snow. Life does not go on with no electricity.
Something to think about when pondering the shut-down of coal as a fuel by the EPA. As if the EPA can do a damn thing to change the climate. If the EPA wants to take credit for the apparenly huge and extremely destructive storms we've had over the past decade or so, while the EPA has been mandating and "fixing" things -- they can go right ahead. Otherwise, why not just shut your ugly regulatory face and find a real job?
Our best local weather guy, Tom Skilling, is on TV right now, giving the predictions. It's cold here -- probably in the 40s, if you live in Florida and consider that cold. Also windy here, and that could be a problem.
Very interesting, too, that Hurricane Sandy gave the Comrade the opportunity to "look presidential" during this last week before the election. Hey folks, don't you find it interesting that he's only "looked presidential" this last week -- out of four years.
You know what to do.
Save the Republic
Sunday, October 28, 2012
March to the sound of the... winds?
In a rather peculiar statement the other day, Leon Panetta said that the miliatry was not deployed to help defend the Benghazi consulate because he didn't have much information about the situation on the ground, and he didn't want to send US troops into harm's way.
I'm sorry, even with the gravity of the situation in mind, this is kinda funny. First of all, the sole purpose of the military is to go into harm's way. That's their job. They're equipped to handle it. They train for it every day.
Second, General Scales was on Fox commenting on this, and he noted that a long-standing military principle is that if you don't exactly know where the battle is, you "march to the sound of the guns." That is to say, you head directly into harm's way.
Third, if you have two drones over Benghazi collecting information, including night visual and infrared images -- and at least one of them might well be armed -- as well as two experienced people on the ground who can target enemy weapons with laser systems, what more information do you need, exactly? Advice from the White House as to the political correctness of the whole thing? And really, would that come under the heading of "intelligence" after all?
Leon, were you ever in the army? Have you ever even read anything about military tactics? Intelligence on troop and weapons deployment is more a less a "nice-to-have" in a combat situation, but it's only been available for the last 100 years or so on a reliable basis -- only since aircraft has been able to do fly-overs, really. You can't even really trust spies all the time, spies being notoriously motivated by money rather than by any national allegiance.
Or, more to the point, does Panetta know nothing about military honor? About guys like Ty Woods and Glen Dougherty, who will rush to provide assistance even when ordered to "stand downn"? You don't even leave your own dead on the ground in enemy territory. What about that, Mr. Panetta, Comrade, Mdm. Hillary, and the whole pack of idiots. Didn't take that into account, did you? Possibly because it's a notion so far from your own thought processes.
But the Comrade is right on his toes in combatting Hurricane Sandy. As the storm works its way up the coast, the Big Zero is touring FEMA headquarters and making sure aid and assistance is standing by.
It's OK to write off an ambassador, his aide, and two former Navy SEALS, but God forbid the lights go out on the Jersey shore. Is that it?
Yup. Right on his toes.
Save the Republic.
I'm sorry, even with the gravity of the situation in mind, this is kinda funny. First of all, the sole purpose of the military is to go into harm's way. That's their job. They're equipped to handle it. They train for it every day.
Second, General Scales was on Fox commenting on this, and he noted that a long-standing military principle is that if you don't exactly know where the battle is, you "march to the sound of the guns." That is to say, you head directly into harm's way.
Third, if you have two drones over Benghazi collecting information, including night visual and infrared images -- and at least one of them might well be armed -- as well as two experienced people on the ground who can target enemy weapons with laser systems, what more information do you need, exactly? Advice from the White House as to the political correctness of the whole thing? And really, would that come under the heading of "intelligence" after all?
Leon, were you ever in the army? Have you ever even read anything about military tactics? Intelligence on troop and weapons deployment is more a less a "nice-to-have" in a combat situation, but it's only been available for the last 100 years or so on a reliable basis -- only since aircraft has been able to do fly-overs, really. You can't even really trust spies all the time, spies being notoriously motivated by money rather than by any national allegiance.
Or, more to the point, does Panetta know nothing about military honor? About guys like Ty Woods and Glen Dougherty, who will rush to provide assistance even when ordered to "stand downn"? You don't even leave your own dead on the ground in enemy territory. What about that, Mr. Panetta, Comrade, Mdm. Hillary, and the whole pack of idiots. Didn't take that into account, did you? Possibly because it's a notion so far from your own thought processes.
But the Comrade is right on his toes in combatting Hurricane Sandy. As the storm works its way up the coast, the Big Zero is touring FEMA headquarters and making sure aid and assistance is standing by.
It's OK to write off an ambassador, his aide, and two former Navy SEALS, but God forbid the lights go out on the Jersey shore. Is that it?
Yup. Right on his toes.
Save the Republic.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln
During the Civil War, the telegraph was a relatively new and high-tech means of communication. Matter of fact, in the vicinity of any battle, it was nearly impossible, even for reporters, to use the telegraph because it was held exclusively for military communication. The Army carried cable with them and strung telegraph lines through the trees or whatever they could find, linking to whatever trunk line was available. And you always knew the enemy was about when the lines were cut.
So Lincon was known to spend considerable time hanging around the telegraph office in Washington, DC, when a battle was on or in the making. He wanted the latest news -- and oftentimes it just wasn't forthcoming. General Grant became somewhat notorious for not keeping in close touch -- at one point Lincoln sent a former New York Tribune reporter out to find out what the heck Grant was doing along the Mississippi River.
And keep in mind, too, that the big battles of the Civil War produced casualties -- dead and wounded -- often in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Three days at Gettysburg racked up more than 40,000 casualties. Of course, that's counting both sides -- both were Americans.
At any rate, after one such horrendous battle, when Lincoln got the telegram regarding the outcome and the number of casualties... he was standing inside the telegraph office and turned to an aide and asked with grave sorrow, "What will we tell the people?"
In just about every case, Lincoln told the people the truth.
In one sense, Lincoln was compelled to tell the truth. Newspsper correspondents traveled with the armies at the time -- though they were despised by most generals and given little comfort -- Sherman even tried to have one hanged at one time -- and it was the correspondents who initially collected the names and numbers of the casualties. Long lists of casualties would be posted outside newspaper offices so people could see if their sons, brothers, husbands, were among them.
And the press, though it rooted noisily for its own side in the war, was often just as loudly critical of Lincoln. While he was in office, Lincoln was probably one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents the US has ever had. After Lincoln showed up at Gettysburg -- 10 months after the battle -- to open the military cemetary there, the brief speech he delivered was dismissed in one newspaper as "the stupid remarks of the president."
But Lincoln told the truth. And he looked at those casualty numbers every damn day, the burden of that no doubt the heaviest responsibility he had to carry.
1864 was an election year -- the campaign running as the war ground on. Grant was stalled outside Richmond, and Sherman was on the march toward Atlanta, very slowly and meeting resistance all along the way.
The Republicans didn't believe Lincoln had even a remote chance to be re-elected, and his democrat challenger, George McClellan, had been a very poipular, if notably ineffectual, war general.
Lincoln let his party know that he'd step down and let them nominate another candidate. Even he didn't think he could win.
Because Lincoln not only told told the truth, but he looked at it closely and accepted it for what it was. And if he didn't tell the truth, the press of the day would happily rat him out.
OK, so right now, all kinds of reports coming out -- by the hour almost -- about the fiasco in Benghazi. Apparently the two SEALS who were the last Americans standing, had repeatedly requested support. There was military in Tripoli, Libya's capitol city, and also an USAF base in Sigorella, Italy, about two hours away.
The fight went on for seven hours. The two former SEALS, among others, requested aid. Ambassador Chris Stevens had, for weeks, requested greater security measures. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice already.
The State Department and the Department of Defense -- and God knows who else -- denied any help or assistance. Leon Panetta, from DoD, says they didn't know what things were like on the ground (despite having access to real-time video of the attack via a hovering drone), and refused to send any assistance. Senator John McCain told Fox News that though there were troops in Tripoli and elsewhere, they had no plan for deployment. They wouldn't know how to assemble themselves to take quick action and were never given any order to do so.
At the White House, the president apparently was sharpening up his blackjack skills in anticipation of his trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, the sickening images from the drone playing in the background, emails coming in right and left about the attack.
Stevens and an aide died of asphixiatioin in the "safe haven" of the consulate, which the terrorists had set on fire. The two former SEALS died fighting from rooftops at another "safe house" about a mile from the consulate. All alone. No back-up. No support.
And wht did the Comrade tell the people?
This makes me truly sick and depressed.
And by the way, General W.T. Sherman finally occupied Atlanta in September, 1864, and news of the victory was one key factor in Lincoln's re-nomination and re-election.
Thankfully, it kinda looks like the Comrade is going to get exactly the kind of support and concern he's given to others. He's dropping in the polls and doesn't look like he's going to recover.
Huzzah!
Save the Republic.
So Lincon was known to spend considerable time hanging around the telegraph office in Washington, DC, when a battle was on or in the making. He wanted the latest news -- and oftentimes it just wasn't forthcoming. General Grant became somewhat notorious for not keeping in close touch -- at one point Lincoln sent a former New York Tribune reporter out to find out what the heck Grant was doing along the Mississippi River.
And keep in mind, too, that the big battles of the Civil War produced casualties -- dead and wounded -- often in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Three days at Gettysburg racked up more than 40,000 casualties. Of course, that's counting both sides -- both were Americans.
At any rate, after one such horrendous battle, when Lincoln got the telegram regarding the outcome and the number of casualties... he was standing inside the telegraph office and turned to an aide and asked with grave sorrow, "What will we tell the people?"
In just about every case, Lincoln told the people the truth.
In one sense, Lincoln was compelled to tell the truth. Newspsper correspondents traveled with the armies at the time -- though they were despised by most generals and given little comfort -- Sherman even tried to have one hanged at one time -- and it was the correspondents who initially collected the names and numbers of the casualties. Long lists of casualties would be posted outside newspaper offices so people could see if their sons, brothers, husbands, were among them.
And the press, though it rooted noisily for its own side in the war, was often just as loudly critical of Lincoln. While he was in office, Lincoln was probably one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents the US has ever had. After Lincoln showed up at Gettysburg -- 10 months after the battle -- to open the military cemetary there, the brief speech he delivered was dismissed in one newspaper as "the stupid remarks of the president."
But Lincoln told the truth. And he looked at those casualty numbers every damn day, the burden of that no doubt the heaviest responsibility he had to carry.
1864 was an election year -- the campaign running as the war ground on. Grant was stalled outside Richmond, and Sherman was on the march toward Atlanta, very slowly and meeting resistance all along the way.
The Republicans didn't believe Lincoln had even a remote chance to be re-elected, and his democrat challenger, George McClellan, had been a very poipular, if notably ineffectual, war general.
Lincoln let his party know that he'd step down and let them nominate another candidate. Even he didn't think he could win.
Because Lincoln not only told told the truth, but he looked at it closely and accepted it for what it was. And if he didn't tell the truth, the press of the day would happily rat him out.
OK, so right now, all kinds of reports coming out -- by the hour almost -- about the fiasco in Benghazi. Apparently the two SEALS who were the last Americans standing, had repeatedly requested support. There was military in Tripoli, Libya's capitol city, and also an USAF base in Sigorella, Italy, about two hours away.
The fight went on for seven hours. The two former SEALS, among others, requested aid. Ambassador Chris Stevens had, for weeks, requested greater security measures. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice already.
The State Department and the Department of Defense -- and God knows who else -- denied any help or assistance. Leon Panetta, from DoD, says they didn't know what things were like on the ground (despite having access to real-time video of the attack via a hovering drone), and refused to send any assistance. Senator John McCain told Fox News that though there were troops in Tripoli and elsewhere, they had no plan for deployment. They wouldn't know how to assemble themselves to take quick action and were never given any order to do so.
At the White House, the president apparently was sharpening up his blackjack skills in anticipation of his trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, the sickening images from the drone playing in the background, emails coming in right and left about the attack.
Stevens and an aide died of asphixiatioin in the "safe haven" of the consulate, which the terrorists had set on fire. The two former SEALS died fighting from rooftops at another "safe house" about a mile from the consulate. All alone. No back-up. No support.
And wht did the Comrade tell the people?
This makes me truly sick and depressed.
And by the way, General W.T. Sherman finally occupied Atlanta in September, 1864, and news of the victory was one key factor in Lincoln's re-nomination and re-election.
Thankfully, it kinda looks like the Comrade is going to get exactly the kind of support and concern he's given to others. He's dropping in the polls and doesn't look like he's going to recover.
Huzzah!
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
President fiddles while Benghazi burns
CBS News released copies of emails tonight that reveal that the president and all the other dopes in the White House knew that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked as it was happening, and probably watched the assault from the Oval Office.
No doubt as the Comrade was getting ready to fly to Vegas for his fundraiser.
I'm sorry. I'm so disgusted I can't even think straight.
Who on earth would vote for this pathetic blockhead in the White House? I can't even believe that he managed to sneak his sorry ass past the American public to be elected in the first place.
I mean really -- wouldn't you hope if your house was on fire and you were locked inside that someone would at least call the Fire Department?
The attack went on for seven hours. Seven hours.
And the the Comrade got on a plane and flew to Vegas, leaving his staff to formulate some stupid lie to tell the public to cover up his pathetic incompetence.
Has he not one tiny little particle of human decency?
To paraphrase Mrs. Comrade: This is the first time in my life I'm truly ashamed of my country.
Save the Republic.
No doubt as the Comrade was getting ready to fly to Vegas for his fundraiser.
I'm sorry. I'm so disgusted I can't even think straight.
Who on earth would vote for this pathetic blockhead in the White House? I can't even believe that he managed to sneak his sorry ass past the American public to be elected in the first place.
I mean really -- wouldn't you hope if your house was on fire and you were locked inside that someone would at least call the Fire Department?
The attack went on for seven hours. Seven hours.
And the the Comrade got on a plane and flew to Vegas, leaving his staff to formulate some stupid lie to tell the public to cover up his pathetic incompetence.
Has he not one tiny little particle of human decency?
To paraphrase Mrs. Comrade: This is the first time in my life I'm truly ashamed of my country.
Save the Republic.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Before the last presidential showdown
I wasn't going to write anything until the debate tonight was over, but I just can't resist. Just a few comments.
First, about Senator George McGovern passing away. Kind of an interesting person. When he ran against Nixon in 1972, I was in my first full-time job and was a member of the SEIU labor union -- had to join or you didn't work. At the time, it was part of the AFL-CIO. One of McGovern's campaign promises was to provide every American with a "guaranteed minimum income," no matter what. No matter if they worked, didn't work, etc., we'd al be on the government payroll. That's cradle-to-grave socialism writ large -- and no one since has even approached that.
As a union member, I was informed along with everyone else that SEIU was donating our dues to the McGovern campaign. Where I worked, all of us union members were fuirous over the guarateed minimum income -- I mean why should we work to support others who won't? Because of the anger from the membership, do believe the AFL-CIO didn't donate to either campaign that year. Shortly afterward, SEIU broke away from the AFL to become the loony communist organization it is today.
Back to McGovern, though. After he left politics, he tried to open a restaurant, and publicly complained about all the barriers the government had thrown up against launching a small business. He said he didn't realize while he was in the Senate how destructive those policies were.
Yeah, kinda depends on if you're a master or a slave, doesn't it?
David Axelrod and other of the Comrade's minions were swarming all over TV this weekend with their usual message. Apparently Rep. Darryl Issa released a number of unclassified emails and other communications Ambassador Chris Stevens and others had sent out regarding the security situation in Libya. Axelrod and the merry marxists claim it's very "unfair" using this tragedy as a political tool. So hiding the information from the public and lying about isn't using it as a political tool? Well, we know who the "tools" really are here.
More tools.... The New York Times came out with a story on Saturday claiming that Iran has agreed to sit down one-on-one with the US to negotiate about its nuclear program. However, the Times noted, the story was completely unconfirmed by anyone in the government, and even if there was such an agreement, the meetings wouldn't take place until after the electon. And... they might not ever take place at all.
Had to laugh. Apparently the Times reporter overheard some talk at a cocktail party or something and decided to pass it along. Or maybe the Times just made it all up to promote the Comrade. Based on the paper's recent record, whaddayathink?
Meanwhile, Gallup released its weekly poll results, showing Romney 51%, Comrade, 45%.
Gallup. The organization also says the numbers can fluctuate before the election.
But the "progressives" all have their panties in a twist. Another attack on their fantasies. Oh God! When will it end??
November 6 we can put them all to rest.
Save the Republic.
First, about Senator George McGovern passing away. Kind of an interesting person. When he ran against Nixon in 1972, I was in my first full-time job and was a member of the SEIU labor union -- had to join or you didn't work. At the time, it was part of the AFL-CIO. One of McGovern's campaign promises was to provide every American with a "guaranteed minimum income," no matter what. No matter if they worked, didn't work, etc., we'd al be on the government payroll. That's cradle-to-grave socialism writ large -- and no one since has even approached that.
As a union member, I was informed along with everyone else that SEIU was donating our dues to the McGovern campaign. Where I worked, all of us union members were fuirous over the guarateed minimum income -- I mean why should we work to support others who won't? Because of the anger from the membership, do believe the AFL-CIO didn't donate to either campaign that year. Shortly afterward, SEIU broke away from the AFL to become the loony communist organization it is today.
Back to McGovern, though. After he left politics, he tried to open a restaurant, and publicly complained about all the barriers the government had thrown up against launching a small business. He said he didn't realize while he was in the Senate how destructive those policies were.
Yeah, kinda depends on if you're a master or a slave, doesn't it?
David Axelrod and other of the Comrade's minions were swarming all over TV this weekend with their usual message. Apparently Rep. Darryl Issa released a number of unclassified emails and other communications Ambassador Chris Stevens and others had sent out regarding the security situation in Libya. Axelrod and the merry marxists claim it's very "unfair" using this tragedy as a political tool. So hiding the information from the public and lying about isn't using it as a political tool? Well, we know who the "tools" really are here.
More tools.... The New York Times came out with a story on Saturday claiming that Iran has agreed to sit down one-on-one with the US to negotiate about its nuclear program. However, the Times noted, the story was completely unconfirmed by anyone in the government, and even if there was such an agreement, the meetings wouldn't take place until after the electon. And... they might not ever take place at all.
Had to laugh. Apparently the Times reporter overheard some talk at a cocktail party or something and decided to pass it along. Or maybe the Times just made it all up to promote the Comrade. Based on the paper's recent record, whaddayathink?
Meanwhile, Gallup released its weekly poll results, showing Romney 51%, Comrade, 45%.
Gallup. The organization also says the numbers can fluctuate before the election.
But the "progressives" all have their panties in a twist. Another attack on their fantasies. Oh God! When will it end??
November 6 we can put them all to rest.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
President admits lies about Libya attack
Did you see the Presidential debate last night? Interesting. The Comrade was teed off that anyone should question his judgment or activites -- or lack of them. To paraphrase from Reap the Wild Wind, "God tells Obama and Obama tells the world." Is this whole campaign thing damaging his delusions? Nowhere to hide?
In one interesting moment, when one of the audience members asked about Libya, the Comrade said he had mentioned "acts of terror" in a speech he made in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the attack at the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdred along with three other people.
Romney asked again, to clarify, did the Comrade just say he knew the attack was an "act of terror" on Sept. 12?
The Comrade noted the words were in his speech.
Modertor Candy Crawly then intervened, claiming that yes, indeed, the Comrade had used those very words, "act of terror" on Sept. 12. She failed to add, however, that he was referencing the World Trade Center attacks, not the ones in Libya.
And all the donkeys cheered. "Haha, Mitt, don't you look good with egg on your face!"
OK... so Romney then began to ask, "Why, then, Mr. President, did you send people out to five different news shows to claim the attack --"
Ms. Crawly decided to change the subject at thus point. And Romney's been criticized for not asking the question -- though God knows, he tried.
So I'll ask the question:
Mr. President, if you knew on Sept. 12 the attack on Libya on Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack, why did you lie about it for the next two weeks?
I'd love to hear his answer, but so far, just crickets.
We ony have to deal with a few more weeks of this crap anyway. Election looming.
Save the Republic.
In one interesting moment, when one of the audience members asked about Libya, the Comrade said he had mentioned "acts of terror" in a speech he made in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the attack at the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdred along with three other people.
Romney asked again, to clarify, did the Comrade just say he knew the attack was an "act of terror" on Sept. 12?
The Comrade noted the words were in his speech.
Modertor Candy Crawly then intervened, claiming that yes, indeed, the Comrade had used those very words, "act of terror" on Sept. 12. She failed to add, however, that he was referencing the World Trade Center attacks, not the ones in Libya.
And all the donkeys cheered. "Haha, Mitt, don't you look good with egg on your face!"
OK... so Romney then began to ask, "Why, then, Mr. President, did you send people out to five different news shows to claim the attack --"
Ms. Crawly decided to change the subject at thus point. And Romney's been criticized for not asking the question -- though God knows, he tried.
So I'll ask the question:
Mr. President, if you knew on Sept. 12 the attack on Libya on Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack, why did you lie about it for the next two weeks?
I'd love to hear his answer, but so far, just crickets.
We ony have to deal with a few more weeks of this crap anyway. Election looming.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)