Second Presidential Debate: Obama's Exploding Libyan Cigar
October 17, 2012 by Paul McKeever
President Barack Obama’s response to the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya was the defining issue of the second U.S. presidential debate. Obama claimed that the day after the attack on the U.S. Consulate there, he:
“…stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
That was a lie. Accordingly, in the manner of a civil litigator cross-examining a lying witness, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave Obama a minute to retract or qualify his answer. Obama did not do so. It was his undoing.
In point of fact, Obama said the following in the Rose Garden the day following the Benghazi attack: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation…”. See video below:
After the debate, a phalanx of pro-Democrat media (especially on CNN) – including debate moderator Candy Crowley – asserted that that Obama’s Rose Garden comment implied that Obama had condemned the Benghazi attack as an act of terror. Such an implication is entirely at odds – and they know it – with Obama’s statement, in the Rose Garden that day, that:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others.”
It is also effectively falsified by the president’s subsequent speech to the U.N., in which he said that “…a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world”. See video below:
Given that Obama and his administration spent the two weeks following the attack saying that a poorly-made youtube video – released on youtube months before the attack – was the cause of the attack, there is absolutely no credibility to the idea that Obama and his administration initially condemned the attack as an act of terror. The truth is that Barack Obama and his administration blamed the attack on freedom of speech in the U.S.A., choosing falsely to blame a terrorist attack on a poorly made video that lampooned Mohammed…even while the Obama administration had intelligence telling them that the attack was not a response to a U.S. video but was, instead, a planned and co-ordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with the video.
Why does this matter, in the context of a presidential election? Answer: Honesty matters. Freedom of speech matters. And an individual who blames the murder of U.S. diplomats upon the exercise of freedom of expression by U.S. citizens – while knowing that the real cause is a hatred of all things western, including freedom of speech – has no business sitting in the presidential office of the United States of America. Such a person, blaming U.S. victims instead of anti-freedom theocrats, is – in effect – a most powerful tool to defeat the United States and Americans, and to facilitate Islamic theocracy.
Forget the economy: neither Obama nor Romney can help the economy, other than by ceasing to strangle it with regulations (and neither of them is promising to stop the strangulation). The central issue is: who is pro-American, and who is anti-American? Who is pro-freedom, and who is the greatest ally that theocratic terrorists ever had? Who is lying?
I do not write as an American: I have no vote in the U.S.A., and I support neither the Republican presidential candidate (Romney) nor the Democrat (Obama). I write as a neighbour to the U.S.A.. And, as such, I say with the greatest goodwill toward Americans: please notice that the Libya murders are not a minor footnote. Honesty about the threat of Islamic theocracy in the USA will make the difference between a prosperous country in which individuals pursue their own happiness, and a society of individuals who – ever fearful – sacrifice their freedom in a desperate plea not to be the next person murdered by Islamic fundamentalists.