Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

The Perpetual Candidate

 

Obama has now made it abundantly clear, if you didn’t get the message before, that his first job and priority is campaigning. The guy can’t meet with any leaders. It might interfere and effect his candidacy. He can’t be honest on recent events, it will hurt his candidacy. He can’t take action on say the debt, because it will hurt his campaign. He can’t talk about his record, it will hurt his candidacy and campaign. He doesn’t even have time for regular briefings.

Get the message loud and clear? Libs, get the bananas out of your ears.

He does the View while squeezing in his UN speech. When it comes to fundraising, even the campaign has to take a backseat. No one forced him to set a billion dollar goal (pricetag) on the office. Anyone who would want this narcissist for a second term is a sadist.

So understand, this is the executive branch, the presidency, the commander in chief — supposedly. The DOI says “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. That is the purpose of our government. Enter Obama. He can’t even defend the first amendment, and they want him to defend the US or the Constitution…or your rights? That weasel defend the country? Give me a break. In the words of BJ Clinton: “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen”.

His first response to the flare up in the ME is to say how much the government condemns the movie, as they say everyone should. Tell us to condemn the Movie? (remember the hard time he had rebuking Wright?) Second, to round up the perpetrator, the guy who made the movie. Oh, then mention justice as if its an afterthought, or as if he can decide what justice is after all his rhetoric. Justice from a guy who is apologetic about the first amendment.

But the Campaigner-in-Chief actually has a day job, which he evades and ignores. It’s more fun rubbing up to celebs, playing golf, or his other favorite pastime, taking vacations. And when he does take trips, he says one of his big jobs is to scout places to bring Michele. What’s not to love about the job? Oh, the job….that’s it!

UN + Obama = UNObama

 
A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?

It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.

When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.

Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.

The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.

I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.

The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:

Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill

So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.

Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.

So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.