Many people thought it was his strongest moment in the debate, but for anyone who has given this controversy 5 minutes of their time will quickly recognize that the Benghazi attacks have also shed light one of the weakest and disconcerting moments of his presidency.
It has been 6 weeks since the attack, does this administration have a consistent story yet? Will they at least acknowledge that they got it wrong and that it wasn't a spontaneous protest that got out of control?
Intelligence records and eye witness accounts have crumbled the president's repeated assertion that the attacks grew out of a protest over a video. This simply isn't true. I want to know, who told this fabricated version of the events to our president? Why did the president believe it for 14 days? Has this person been fired?
During the debate, the president boldly promised that they would hunt down these vicious killers and bring them to justice. Well, six weeks have passed. Are there arrests? Are there at least interrogations happening?
Or has six weeks simply demonstrated that the president's bold declaration "to bring about justice" is simply empty rhetoric?
***
The New York Times ran a fascinating article which shed light on the fact that the president may have delivered a carefully crafted answer to a debate question, but his actions tell a completely different story.
The NYT reporter David Kirkpatrick flew to Benghazi and personally met with a man who many eyewitnesses and government officials have said was outside the embassy that dreadful night, giving orders and is even considered one of the terrorist ring leaders.
Like me, you might ask, how did Kirkpatrick find this killer? Did he have to meet with him in secret? Did he meet with him in an undisclosed location surrounded by jihadist guards? Shockingly no. This leader sat with a reporter and "spent two leisurely hours one evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan government."
This terrorist says that he has never been interviewed by officials and he doesn't believe that they will come after him. This man says "he has no plans to go into hiding."
Hmm. It doesn't sound like a "hunt for those responsible" is actually happening. It isn't.
What a mockery this terrorist is making of us. He brazenly killed four of our own and now brazenly, scoffs at the idea that our president will actually do anything about it. Can we imagine for one minute how these individuals must have laughed to see the president parade himself around on "The View," "David Letterman" and even before the United Nations assembly and for 14 days apologize for some obscure video that "sparked an out-of-control protest?"
Please. They know the president was feeding us a line and they were the only ones laughing.
***
The president and his administration's tepid and sporadic response to this terrorist attack has been troubling and offensive.
9/11 should have taught this president an interesting lesson. Americans rallied behind President George Bush at a desperate moment. We were broken, but he wasn't. We were scared, but he was strong. And what was the result? Patriotism began to swell and Americans rallied. We rallied behind our president and above all, the terrorists knew that we were coming for them.
President Obama missed it. We would have rallied and millions of Americans would have rallied behind him. But what happened instead? His message was muddied with talk of a video and a phony protest. It still is.
President Obama has failed to show leadership and no carefully crafted answer in a debate can change that.
Obama was so focused on trying to downplay terrorism that he missed a rare opportunity to stand behind his "megaphone" and declare to the world that terrorism will not be tolerated and that America is coming fast and strong for those who attacked us.
Instead we have a leader who is still trying to articulate which "act of terror" he was referring to in his Rose Garden speech on September 12th. Not strong. Not impressive. Not leadership.
***
Am I implying that the president should have used a horrific tragedy for political gain? Absolutely not, but a firm and decisive response to this tragedy would have had a much different impact on a president who prides himself on being a bold foreign policy leader.
All we got was a lack of coherency, which speaks volumes about his judgement.
Tonight's debate focus on foreign policy is a perfectly timed gift for Mitt Romney. He may been caught off guard by Crowley's participation in the last debate, but he will be ready tonight and the American people will see that not only is the president's judgment questionable, but Americans will see that Mitt Romney is more than ready to take his place.
No comments:
Post a Comment