Commander-in-Chief Moment? Too Little Too Late

The devastation on the east coast is heartbreaking.  The images of disaster, sadness and turmoil are truly gripping the nation.  How long will it take that area to recover?  Where does the clean-up even begin? And how will the confidence of those most impacted ever be fully restored?

Images from Denver Post

Sadly, this storm has reminded us that our great nation is not immune to heartache---but this massive storm has also reminded us that when tragedy strikes our borders, the goodness of our people surges.  Strangers help strangers.  Neighbors comfort neighbors.  Weary hands are lifted and broken hearts are consoled.

When tragedy strikes, Americans unite and the resolve of our people prevails.

This storm will be no different.

The timing of any storm is tragic, but the timing of Hurricane Sandy was historic.  Days before a pivotal election, the most populated cities in America were under siege by Mother Nature.

For two days, the political world came to a standstill.  Each candidate tried to tread careful waters to ensure that the events were not politicized.  Sincerity and intentions were highly scrutinized by the ever-watching eye of the media.

Both candidates cancelled campaign rallies and their fundraisers were replaced with relief efforts.

The media has claimed that this storm gave Obama a much needed "Commander-in-Chief Moment."  Many have said that he rose to the challenge and commanded himself with authority.

The president made sure that FEMA was offering adequate support.

Um...isn't that in his job?  Did he do anything but fill his role as the president?  Was his concern unique?  Was his leadership above and beyond?  No.

In this disaster response, the president did his job.  Period.  But will it be enough to tip sliding numbers in his favor on November 6th?

I would argue no and here is why:  Long after the FEMA trucks have cleaned up the last pile of debris and long after the pumps have emptied the last flooded subway station, Americans who struggled to find work for the last four years, (23 million Americans) will still be looking for a job in Obama's crumbling economy.

That will resonate long after the images have faded of the president flying over the disaster in a helicopter or standing behind a podium at the FEMA headquarters.  Americans know that for four years, the president has tried to fix our economy, unite our country and cut the deficit.  He hasn't even come close.  Too little too late.

It is hard to ignore that although the president offered Hope and Change, anywhere the president promised specifics, he has failed to deliver.

It is time to heal.  It is time to really recover.  It is time to finally get it right.

More and more Americans are beginning to recognize that we need the leadership of someone with a track record of being successful at bringing about real change.  No storm can change that.

As Michael Gerson so brilliantly stated here in The Washington Post,

"He (Obama) has not shown the leadership skills or the inclination to create consensus around large issues. The problem is that large issues — avoiding the fiscal cliff, reforming the tax code, making entitlement commitments more sustainable — are coming. Either Obama will have to become an entirely different type of leader — or America needs a new one."

I think Gerson is right, America needs Mitt.

Why Women Can Confidently Stand With Mitt

Imagine your house is on fire.  From the curb, you watch your life go up in flames.  To your relief, firefighters arrive and reassuringly tell you they can help.  They run into your home.  Long minutes pass and the black smoke thickens.  Firefighters finally emerge protecting something in their hands.  They run to you and say, “Don’t worry.  We got it.  Here is your birth control.”

This is how I feel about the president’s campaign to target women.  Our economy is still crumbling.  Families still can’t pay their bills.  My neighbors are still losing their homes and four years later, the president hasn’t fixed it.  Days before his re-election, he thinks I should be focused on birth control? 

Please.  I am insulted.

President Obama says women should fear Mitt Romney claiming that Romney will to “take women back to the 1950s.”

There are a few reasons why President Obama and his surrogates are wrong about their erroneous and misleading claims about Mitt Romney.

I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was elected governor.  His actions demonstrated that he cared about women’s issues.  First, he selected a remarkable female Lt. Governor and then filled his cabinet with more women than any time in state history—more than any other cabinet in the country.  And throughout his sterling business career he surrounded himself with countless female executives.

The criticism for Romney’s “binders full of women” comment is juvenile.  Have we forgotten that Monster.com didn’t exist?  He reviewed “binders full of resumes” of women and he ended up hiring dozens of them to be his key advisors.

Like the President, Governor Romney also inherited a “mess.”  Massachusetts was facing a recession.

But unlike President Obama, he not only kept every one of his 44 campaign promises, but he passed health care reform, cut taxes, lowered unemployment to 4.6%, balanced the budget, drove public schools to #1 in the nation, and turned a $3 billion budget shortfall into a $2 billion surplus—and achieved it all without raising taxes or borrowing a single dollar. 

More remarkable?  He accomplished it in one term with an 87% democratically controlled state legislature.  (Has the president’s record even come close?)

Under Romney's leadership, did women lose access to birth control?  Did women lose their voice or place in the workforce?  Did women go back to the 1950s?  Absolutely not—in fact, it was just the opposite.  It’s misleading to act under the misguided assumption that it would be any different under a Romney presidency.

Does Romney have plans to eliminate birth control?  No.  Does he promise to get America’s fiscal crisis in order?  Yes.  Will that require possibly cutting federally funded programs like Planned Parenthood, which could be self or state funded? Most likely.

But someone should tell the President that actions speak louder than words.  The 2011 White House annual report shows that White House female staffers earned 18 percent less than male staffers.

The truth?  President Obama is marching America towards a deficit level that mirrors Greece—a country on the brink of collapse.  Is birth control the top concern for those Greek women?  Probably not. 

Shame on the president and his campaign for thinking it should be here.

We must take the steps to protect America’s stability or we are like women asking a firefighter to run into a burning home just to save our birth control.  If birth control isn’t going anywhere, why should it be the determining factor for whom is most able to lead America back to the path of prosperity?

In the words of Governor Susannah Martinez, “Too many Americans are out of work. Our debt is out of control.  Obama promised to bring us together, to cut unemployment, to pass immigration reform, and to cut the deficit in half in his first term—(he) hasn’t come close to accomplishing any of it.”

I am a woman.  I live in Denver, Colorado and I stand with Mitt because his resume shows that he’ll know what to do and not just know what to say.  A recovery is supposed to feel like a recovery and my family can’t afford to find out what happens if President Obama gets it wrong…again.

Join me and stand with Mitt.  It's time to find out what a real recovery is supposed to feel like.

A Principled Leader & A Man of Faith

As I mentioned here, I was one of 10,000+ supporters to attend a remarkable rally this week at the historic Red Rocks amphitheater.

It was one of the most powerful and remarkable political events I have ever attended.  Ask anyone who was there and they will tell you the same thing---something changed that night.

As Mitt Romney spoke to the crowd, he was visibly moved.  I can only image how humbling it must have been to see thousands and thousands of people take time from their lives, to support him, rally behind him and believe in him.

I spoke with someone who was back stage at the event and he shared a moving story about what happened after Mitt left the stage.  Mitt was so moved by the events, that he removed himself from the attention and offered a quiet prayer of gratitude and humility to God.

Imagine my surprise and delight to see that someone took the time here to write about what my friend had also seen.

Image from mittromneycentral.com

I have often heard that Mitt always finds a quiet place, away from his staff to silently pray before every event.  Prayer is part of this man's life.  He prays for wisdom and guidance in all that he does.  

This speaks volumes for the type of person that he strives to become.  Mitt Romney--a principled leader and a man of faith.

America needs him.

Failed Leadership

On September 11, 2012, the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.  Four Americans were killed including our Ambassador, Chris Stevens.  It was the first time in 30 years that an Ambassador has been killed abroad.

It was a tragic and horrific event carried out by extremists who hate everything about us.  Their hatred is deep.  Their rage is insatiable.  And their utter disgust for America allows them to justify abhorrent atrocities against our people.

The White House has been deeply criticized for what appears to be a distinct attempt to mislead Americans about the nature of this attack.  For 14 days, we heard about "spontaneous protests which grew out of control," we heard about an obscure YouTube video which inspired "angry riots" and we also heard, although abstractly, it referred to as an "act of terror."

Six weeks later, the picture becomes clear.

1. Months before the attack, our ambassador feared for his life and had requested for additional security measures.  It was denied.  
2. Benghazi was a dangerous place.  On the day of the attack, the British and even the Red Cross had evacuated the city.  Despite the danger and the anniversary of 9/11, our ambassador and his team remained with inadequate protection.  
3. There was no protest of any kind.  Multiple eye witnesses said, "The streets were quiet." So where did this fabricated story originate and why did the president believe it?  
4. It was undoubtedly terrorism and a jihadist group has claimed responsibility.

Most discouraging?  Emails and paper trail show that the White House knew it all.

Today there is a fascinating and heart breaking Fox News Exclusive report which shows that during the horrific raids, CIA operatives were on the phone with US Intelligence agencies.  In real time, they requested additional military back-up.  Three times they requested reinforcements, yet all three times they were told to "Stand Down."

For seven hours, these men hid behind the walls of a safe house.  For seven hours, they must have heard the angry hate-filled voices of the terrorists getting closer.  For seven hours, these men must have clung to each other and probably clung to the hope that someone would come to save them.

No one answered their call.   All four of them were killed.

Yet, from this article, we learned that 480 miles away at the Sigonella US Air Force Base, military jets were aware of the attacks and were waiting for the go ahead to send Tier One Special operations forces and Delta Force Operators to help.

They would have made it in time.  The command never came.

Where was our president in all of this and even just a few hours later?  Our president stood at a campaign rally / fundraiser in Las Vegas while he boasted of his accomplishments and how America needs to fear someone like Mitt Romney.

Enough.

Our president failed to fix our economy.  Our president failed to balance a budget and restore fiscal discipline in Washington, instead he added $5 trillion to our debt---$4 billion dollars a day.  Our president has failed to end bitter partisanship.  Our president failed to guide our leaders to find compromise for our country's biggest problems.  Our president has failed us.

And in the Benghazi attack---an act of war---our president failed to lead.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."                                                  - Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 11 days, we need to hold him accountable for it all.

We can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.

Mr. President, A Lack of Plan isn't the Problem, It's Your Inability to Execute

This week, our president released a 20-page pamphlet with his plan to get America back to work.  He is calling it a "The New Economic Patriotism--A Plan for Jobs."

In its glossy pages, the president touts that his 2nd term will focus on 1) Reviving manufacturing 2) Creating energy independence, 3) Encouraging small business growth 4) Improving education 5) Cutting the deficit.

He believes this will be the key to turning the economy around.

Hmmm.

Am I wrong?  It sure sounds a lot like Mitt Romney's 5-point plan: 1) Energy Independence  2) Improving Trade  3) Improve Education and Skills Training  4) Cut Deficit & Balance the Budget  5) Strengthen Small Business.

With less than 2 weeks to go, is this little blue book, the October surprise?

The president seems to think so.  He is now proudly distributing the 20-page pamphlet and the contents are now part of every stump speech.  He says, "I've got a plan that will actually create jobs, that will actually lower the deficit, that will actually create middle-class security."

"Actually" create jobs?  "Actually" lower the deficit?  "Actually" create security?

The truth of the matter is Mr. President, your record of the past four years has shown that every single one of those areas has "actually" been hurt under your leadership.

***

His Plan Will Actually Create Jobs?
Problem?  Obama has already been trying to create jobs for the past 4 years and he spent trillions to accomplish it.  Yet, 23 million Americans are still out of work.  Median incomes are down ($4300 per family), overly qualified people are taking underpaying jobs and college graduates can't find work.

Image from Blue Point Trading

Why should we expect this to be any different if the leadership stays the same? 

***

His Plan Will Actually Lower the Deficit?
In the first few weeks of his presidency, President Obama vowed to the American people that he would cut the budget deficit in half in his first term.  Did he keep that promise?  No, far from it.  He actually doubled it.  Under his watch, our government is now borrowing $4 billion a day.

The truth? $5 trillion has been added to the deficit under his watch.

Why should we expect this to be any different if the leadership stays the same?

***

His Plan Will Actually Create Security for the Middle-Class?
In the last four years, more Americans---47 million people---more than any other time in our history are now dependent on the Food Stamp program.  In the last four years, 1 in 6 Americans now lives in a state of poverty.  Under this president's watch, millions of Americans have slipped out of the Middle Class.

It is important to remember that according to this Administration, the recovery from the Great Recession  began in the summer of 2009.  Does that record reflect a recovery?

Image from US Daily Review

Why should we have confidence that the results would be any different if the leadership stays the same?

***

It isn't that the president lacks a plan--it's that he has simply shown a complete inability to execute one.

The promises he now makes are just recycled promises from his first term.  This video shows it perfectly.  If he couldn't get it done in four years, why would the results be any different in the next four?

While I appreciate the boldness and sincerity of a specific plan, I am afraid that this time around I don't need lofty ideas or beautiful speeches, I need results.

I will fully support the candidate who also has a 5-point plan, but this candidate's record tells me that he'll know how to execute it.  The candidate whose career has revived the bankrupt, fixed the broken, balanced the budgets, created jobs, created surpluses, worked in a bipartisan fashion and never raised a single tax or borrowed a single dollar to accomplish it.

Image from Real Clear Politics

Unfortunately the president's record doesn't even come close.

Go Mitt.

A Defining Moment

Something has changed in this election.  If you can't feel it then you aren't paying attention.  Mitt's support is beginning to surge.  Something is different.  It's happening.

I was one of 10,000+ who attended an extremely powerful rally last night at the famous Red Rocks outdoor amphitheater outside of Denver.  It was definitely one of the coolest and most stirring political events I have ever attended.  

When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan came on stage, they were each visibly moved by the size of the crowd.  It was a site to be seen and felt.

Mitt Romney spoke of his love for our country, his deep concern for millions who are burdened with desperate financial times and then he also spoke of his resolve to help every one of them.   He spoke of America's greatness and the potential that is about to be reborn in this country.  He spoke of patriotism and he told a story about an American flag that somehow survived the 1986 Challenger crash.  The story moved the crowd and will undoubtedly stay with me forever.

Image from Mitt Romney Scrapbook

Image from Mitt Romney Scrapbook 

Image from Mitt Romney Scrapbook 

I want to echo the words Paul Ryan so often says, 

"I don't think there has been a time in our nation's history when a man and the moment have met so perfectly.  Everything Mitt Romney has done is his life has prepared him for the kind of leadership we need now.  This is a defining moment."

I couldn't agree more.  Mitt Romney's entire career has prepared him for this fight.  He has been trained to know what to do and not just what to say.  He is ready.  Of one thing I am certain, under Mitt Romney's leadership, the recovery will be real.

The time is now.  This is the moment.  America needs Mitt.

A Broken Economy at Home = A Broken Standing in the World

The final debate is over and I think my heart rate has finally normalized.  (I can't take much more of these).  The political pundits were quick to award Obama with the win, but ironically, cable news programs' focus groups proved once again that Mitt Romney had the edge.

Today conservatives are scratching their heads a little.  Did Romney really let Obama off the hook on Libya?  Wasn't that the freebie question of the night and yet all we heard was Romney give a boring narrative of the Arab Spring?  I was confused and admittedly, still am.  I guess I was just anxious to see Obama try to slither out of the Libya debacle in front of millions of voters.  It just didn't happen.

Image from Fiscal Times

Was it the right thing?

Time will tell---14 days to be exact---but as I have reflected on the debate, I realize that Romney's debate strategy may prove to be brilliant.

Romney did not engage the president on Libya because I believe that he wanted to make just one simple and harsh case against the president's foreign policy failures.  Namely, that America has lost its standing in the world because we are broken at home.

It was a powerful imagery to realize that we are no longer seen as the shining light on the hill because we are burdened and being swallowed by our debt and the reckless spending habits of our leaders.  A broken economy at home = a broken standing in the world.

No "horse and bayonet" zinger from the president will overshadow that imagery and Americans were reminded that it happened under this president's watch.

Image from Fox News

Mitt Romney proved that he is presidential and like it or not, he looks ready to fill the oval office.  Voters saw it and had to feel confident of his command of foreign policy details.  Mitt Romney knows his stuff.

The most powerful moment of the night for me came when Mitt Romney talked about Obama's "apology tour."  He said,

"The reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq.  And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to other nations.  And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel.  And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive.  You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.  No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators."

Strong words and I am confident that it resonated with the right people.

***

The race remains close.  So, did the debate change a thing?  Well, I think the president enthused his base, but I don't' think he won any new votes.  And it would be hard to imagine that Mitt Romney lost any of his new supporters.

It was a draw.

So where does it go from here?  14 days from today, this will all come to a close.  It is hard to predict the outcome, especially when I have heard that in states like Ohio, it will literally come down to 8 votes per precinct.  Really, 8 votes per precinct.

I guess my feeling is this, if the president has yet to destroy his rival, he probably can't.  If the president has failed to convince independents to rally behind him, he probably won't.  If the president has failed to convince Americans who overwhelmingly loved and adored and supported him just 4 years ago, zingers about horses and bayonets aren't going to be enough to attract them with the same enthusiasm.

Why?  Because this time around, the president has a record and let's be frank, it stinks.

Image from Politico

It's time to recover.  It's time to get it right.  It's time to say, thank you Mr. President, we know you tried, we know you wanted to help, we know you thought you could, but you didn't.  And as I always say, my family can't afford to find out what happens if you get it wrong...again.

Please step aside and let's let a professional finally get it right.

Go Mitt.

Foreign Policy Takes Center Stage and The President's Judgement Will Too

During the last debate, the attacks in Benghazi took center stage.  President Obama told Mitt Romney, "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and 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."

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.

Mr. President, All Signs Are Pointing to Your Rival

It is almost hard to imagine, given the unprecedented swell of support in 2008 and even how the polls were just 2 weeks ago, that President Obama's reelection could ever be vulnerable, but it is.

Gallup Poll shows Mitt Romney surging and is now enjoying a 7-point lead nationally.

Image from CNN

The press and the Obama team are trying to argue that polls don't really reflect the true heat of the race and that swing states are the only states that matter.  While I do agree, it is also hard to deny that 18-days before the election, momentum is clearly on Romney's side.

A lot can happen in the next few weeks, but I believe there are undeniable facts that hurt this president:  The economy is not improving.  Layoffs are happening in droves.  Americans aren't idiots.  And it's still about the economy.  Period.

I have said before that long after the soundbites have faded, Mitt Romney's words uttered in the last debate will leave a lasting sting on the president.  Namely, his scathing critique of the president's failed policies.

This short clip from Tuesday's debate, says it all and believe me, it won't be soon forgotten.

The president is asking for a second chance to get it right, but we are quickly beginning to see that he is asking us to take a huge gamble on him and we know full-well that we are the ones who will be impacted if he gets it wrong...again.

Americans concern for their own well-being must trump the allegiance once felt for a president they adored.  Mr. President, this time around, it has to be about us.  We have to put our job security ahead of yours.  We have to put our livelihood and financial security ahead of your political aspirations.

Truth is, we know you wanted to help.  We know you wanted to save us, but it didn't work.  Despite all you tried, America's economy is still crumbling.

We need to recover.  We need help.  We need leadership and it is becoming increasingly clear that to achieve it, all signs are pointing to your rival.

Image from Orlando Sentinel

Go Mitt.

Does Benghazi Matter? 3 Reasons Why it Does

The most highly talked about moment in Tuesday's debate isn't the fact that Obama had a strong performance---it isn't that the president "won" the debate---and much to Obama's dismay, the focus isn't "binders full of women."

Like it or not, the focus continues to be the Benghazi attacks.

Image from ABC News

During the debate, Mitt Romney said, "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

The president then interrupted and said, "Get the transcript." (Who was he talking to?)  Then out of nowhere, the debate moderator Candy Crowley, interjected and declared that the president did indeed call it an "act of terror."

Wait...When the president said, "Get the transcript," did he actually cue the moderator?  Had the president actually prepared her in advance with materials to help him at just the right moment?

Is that even allowed?  Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Well, I want to know if Mitt Romney was granted the same courtesy.  Because I am sure Romney would have appreciated Crowley's "fact checking skills" when the president flatly denied that his administration has cut the number of permits and licenses for oil drilling on federal lands and waters. Obama said Romney was lying.  Fact checkers and analysts have confirmed that Romney was right.

{It is worth noting, that following the debate, Crowley admitted that "Romney was largely right on Libya."}

Image from Wall Street Journal

But thanks to the debate, Obama finally offered some clarity:  He wants the American people to know that on September 12th, he officially, although somewhat ambiguously, called the embassy attack an "act of terror."

Well, I would argue that there are three reasons why Obama made a huge mistake in "clarifying an act of terror:"

***

#1 Did the President Prioritize Fundraising over National Security?

1) If the president firmly believed that the attacks were an "act of terror," how did he justify hours after the attack, to leave the confines of closed door meetings with his National Security Advisers and Intelligence Staff at the White House to parade himself around at fundraisers and campaign events? 

Obama in Las Vegas on September 12th (Image from Flickr)

Hadn't terrorists just committed a despicable act of war on America's interests abroad?  Wasn't an Ambassador dead?  For the first time in 30 years, an American ambassador had been murdered in an attack on our embassy and hours later, the president is off talking to supporters in Las Vegas about looking "Forward?"

That doesn't exactly look like leadership.  And it certainly doesn't show the terrorists that we have a president who is serious about terrorism.

#2 Who Fed the President False Information? Why Did he Believe Them?

If the president was convinced on September 12th that it was terrorism, then at what point did he change his conviction?  Who told him that it was a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video and why did he trust them enough to believe it?  Who had the president's ear?  And how did they convince him so quickly to change his description of the attacks to repeatedly say that it was simply a spontaneous protest in response to an obscure 20 minute video? 

Image from UPI.com

Whoever fed the president and Secretary Hillary Clinton this false information should be fired.  This information tarnished their reputation and their judgement.  My heavens, days after the attack, our president and the Secretary of State stood before the caskets of the four dead Americans and in front of their families, they simply condemned the video.  

Even worse?  Obama and Clinton spent millions of dollars on a commercial aired in Pakistan where they actually apologized for any offense that the video had caused---yet not one condemnation of terrorism.  

For two weeks, White House spokesmen, Obama and Clinton repeated claims about the video.  President Obama appeared on The View, David Letterman and he even spoke before the United Nations, but never once clarified that our embassy had been attacked by terrorists.  Rather, we simply heard that there was an investigation and that the video clip had sparked the violence.    

We now know that this not true. 

#3 Why Are Only Women Taking the Heat?   Did Obama throw Women Under the Bus?

Five days after the Benghazi attacks, the White House sent the current UN Ambassador, Susan Rice to appear on five different Sunday talk shows.  On each of these shows, Rice adamantly and consistently insisted, "Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, a spontaneous protest prompted by the YouTube video." 

The Washington Post reported that Rice says that "days before her TV appearances, she relied on updates from Security Officials and also on a set of talking points prepared by the administration."  She says that there was no attempt on her part to "pick and choose" possible explanations.  

Either she is lying or someone deliberately used her to downplay suspicions of terrorism.  Why?  Either way, Rice's reputation and her credibility is ruined and someone in this administration is letting it happen.

Secretary Hillary Clinton is also at the center of this controversy.  She now takes "full responsibility for what happened on September 11th."  Full responsibility for what?

Is Hillary confirming that she was the one who ignored Ambassador Steven's repeated requests to beef up security in Benghazi?  Was she responsible for the phony talking points provided for Susan Rice?  Was she the one who had the president's ear and convinced him to waver on his September 12th "act of terror" declaration? 

Was she the one who failed to inform the President and Joe Biden that this was truly terrorism and that there were security breeches?  Because according to the last two debates, apparently neither of them were "aware" of any security issues at this embassy.

If all of this is true, will the president be forced to fire Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton?  If it isn't true, then why is President Obama allowing these two women to take the blame?

Either way, his administration seems perfectly willing to throw these women under the bus.

***

The president and his administration have handled the Benghazi tragedy with sloppiness and careless ambiguity.   An ambassador is dead.  American interests have been attacked by terrorists.  American security has been breached.  And yet, all we see from this administration is that a strange cover-up is unraveling.

To defend the president on many things is fine with me, but to defend his handling of the Benghazi attack is indefensible.

The press may not want to hold him accountable for it, but in 19 days, we can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.