Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
Libya-gate and Bizarre Debates
Is the Obama administration deliberately throwing the election to Romney-Ryan?
The scandal involving the Obama administration's refusal to beef up security for diplomatic personnel serving in unstable areas of North Africa and the Middle East on September 11 is compounded by the administration's attempted cover-up of their failure by claiming the violence was the work of spontaneous "protestors" who were "demonstrating" against a YouTube video. We now know that the attacks were well-coordinated and planned to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11/01.
First, the record and testimony show that Ambassador Stevens feared for his life and was very concerned that two weeks before the anniversary of 9/11/01 the contingent of US Marines guarding the Libyan Ambassador were reassigned out of country. The record also shows that Stevens' concerns were known to the State Department yet nothing was done to beef up security for Stevens. The return of Ambassador Stevens to Libya was highly classified information that was leaked to terrorists.
Second, the nature of the attack made it clear that it was a well-coordinated terrorist attack to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11/01. That any intelligence officer could suggest that the attacks had anything to do with a YouTube video online since July testifies to either the incompetence of that officer, or his participation in an attempt to cover-up the real nature of the attacks. No protestors were anywhere near the attacked compound. According to those who monitored arabic broadcasts in the region, three days prior to the attacks there were clear warnings that an attack to commemorate 9/11/01 was planned by foreign terrorists in Libya.
Finally, the repetition of the false story that the attacks were linked to a YouTube video was repeated and supported by the Obama administration more than two weeks after the attacks. Five days after the attacks, at a time when it was well-known that the attacks were a well-coordinated terrorist attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was instructed to repeat the false story that the attacks were the work of a spontaneous "protest" over the video to each of the five Sunday morning news programs! On September 25th, two weeks after the attacks, President Obama in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, mentioned the video six times, suggesting that it triggered the attacks. Obama never once mentioned a terrorist attack to commemorate 9/11/01.
This attempted cover-up of a terrorist attack on US territory in Libya is a shocking repeat of the kind of electioneering hubris that marked the Watergate Scandal. To call this scandal "Libya-gate" is fitting and proper, except that nobody died in the Watergate scandal. Now, as congressional investigations peel the shell of obstruction of truth from this administration, the net effect will be just the opposite of the original intended purpose of the cover-up, that being to help shield the Obama administration as the elections of 2012 draw close.
Last night featured the second of two debates, the one and only Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and candidate Rep. Paul Ryan. The first debate a week earlier pitted President Obama against his challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The performance of both Obama administration participants in these debates was simply bizarre.
Obama - Romney
The Obama-Romney debate showcased a well-prepared, knowledgeable Mitt Romney seizing the initiative from a detached, confused (where was that teleprompter?), and seemingly unprepared Barack Obama who looked anything but presidential. Obama was shellacked. He lacked substance and had no answers for some of the pointed questions Romney tossed his way.
Throughout the debate, Obama persisted in repeating his false caricature of Romney and his positions that had been carefully constructed by the Obama campaign and broadcast over three months of heavy TV ad bombardments in key electoral states. Several hundred million dollars of campaign funds had been poured into this false characterization of Romney. So, when the debate finally arrived, Obama simply repeated his version of Romney and his positions. Unfortunately for Obama, the real Romney was present and did an outstanding job of correcting the gross misrepresentations that the Obama campaign had so carefully crafted to tear down and demonize their opponent. Of course, that was the only campaign strategy available to the Obama campaign since they simply could not run on their very short list of accomplishments.
Following the Presidential debate, the Obama campaign was quick to launch their "he lied" attacks. Imagine, Mitt Romney had the temerity to object to their false characterization of who he really was! Therefore, Mitt Romney must have lied. Do you see the hubris in this tactic?
It is worth noting that the Obama campaign is putting all its effort into repeatedly lying about Mitt Romney and then claiming Romney lies by denying the Obama campaign's fiction! Obama has become our "Liar-in-Chief". He lies about his opponents; he lies about Libya; he lies about unemployment; he lies about massive deficits; he lies about killing Osama bin Laden, in short, he lies just about every time he opens his mouth. Those who witness these continual lies and still cling to their support for Obama are just as guilty as the Liar-in-Chief. "If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked." - Proverbs 29:12.
Polls showed that Romney "annihilated" Obama in the debate, with from 67% to over 70% of people believing Romney had convincingly won the debate. The margin of Romney's triumph in the Presidential debate is unprecedented and was completely unexpected by most pundits. I believe it is a harbinger of things to come in November.
Obama's performance can succinctly be summed up as "bizarre."
Biden - Ryan
Then last night we were exposed to the most uncivil, discourteous, dismissive, rude, and childish behavior of any candidate in any debate since the first televised debate of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in 1960. Even Al Gore's boorish moments during the 2000 Presidential debates pales into insignificance compared with the persistent interruptions, dismissive gestures, and plastered smiles on Biden's face. Biden did everything he could to trivialize the debate process while he, once again, repeated over and over the false narrative being spun by the Obama campaign about Romney and Ryan.
One thing that did strike me. I thought Biden appeared to have known the questions that were going to be asked well in advance and had been well-prepped on the narrative he should give for each. Biden simply is not that good on his feet. I believe the debate commission has some explaining to do in this regard.
I do give credit to Biden for following his script. It was obvious that his tactics were given to him over the many days of his preparation for this debate. The only problem was that Biden simply doesn't have the necessary assets to pull off that tactic convincingly without immersing it in a sea of smarmy antics.
Long before election day arrives, the only thing people will remember about the Biden-Ryan debates was that Joe Biden acted like a spoiled brat with his childish antics.
Like his boss, the President, Biden's performance was truly bizarre.
Post-debate polls showed Ryan winning convincingly:
Associated Press: Ryan 51% to Biden's 43%
CNBC: Ryan 56% to Biden's 36%
CNN: Ryan 48% to Biden's 44%
These poll results show that the strategy Biden followed failed miserably. Or did it?
Obama Giving Up?
Standing back and surveying the wreckage from devastating congressional investigations into Libya-gate and factoring in the bizarre performances of both Obama and Biden in the initial debates, I am left wondering whether it might just be that Obama wants out and is simply not interested in another term.
How else to explain the administration's reckless Libya-gate performance and the bizarre debates?
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.