In the ever spinning world of the Obama Campaign Administration cover up of the Libya terrorist attack, we take another go-around.
You may have noticed that, over the last week, I have taken to referring to Obama and his minions as, the “Obama Campaign Administration.”
While Obama has been in campaign mode since the day he took office, it is now becoming clear that his campaign staff is making the decisions regarding everything including his foreign policies. These decisions are not in the best interest of the country…These decisions are in the best interests of the Obama campaign.
Why else, pray tell, would Obama have David Axelrod dispatched to the Sunday shows to talk about…Libya?
On Fox News Sunday, Axelrod was bemoaning the “politicization” of the Libya scandal.
Then, yesterday afternoon, 24 hours before tonight’s debate, it’s leaked that the administration is…”CONSIDERING” a strike or strikes in retaliation for the Libya terrorist attack.
First of all…Why exactly is this being…”leaked?”
To make Obama seem tough on terror the night before his next debate which will split time between domestic and…Foreign policy.
There are no coincidences.
Second…Just as Obama, for political reasons, told our enemies in Afghanistan exactly when we would be leaving the theater of war, he is now letting it be known by our enemies in Libya exactly what it is we are planning.
The AP reported yesterday: “Administration officials say the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to hit militant targets from Libya to Mali, if U.S. investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador in Libya.”
Now then, were I in whole or in part responsible for the terrorist attack in Libya last month…Upon hearing THIS news…I would remain in hiding and scatter my people to the winds.
If Obama can’t FIND them he can’t STRIKE them…Right?
This is Obama’s way of trying to “seem” tough to the AMERICAN people while tipping off our enemies so that no real harm will come to them.
But, of course, the AP had more: “But the officials say the administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile governments in the region.”
Let me explain this so succinctly that even a liberal might understand it.
On September 11th, we had 4 Americans KILLED…by al Qaeda…On U.S. soil, in Libya. Our Ambassador, a security man and 2 U.S. Navy Seals.
Now…Obama is worried about “riling” regional governments?
We certainly wouldn’t want to “rile” the Iranians. Clearly we wouldn’t want to “rile” the Syrians. We wouldn’t want to “rile” the Pakistanis would we? There are far too many tribal war lords friendly to the Taliban and the al Qaeda to name but, we don’t want to “rile” them either.
Here’s some breaking news…THEY’RE ALREADY RILED!!!
What exactly would be the fallout of such strikes? The Taliban and al Qaeda would STOP liking us? The Iranians, Pakistanis and the Syrians might get grumpy towards us?
Third…We’re “considering” a strike.
Our apology for the film that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack didn’t work?
I suppose a citizen’s arrest is out of the question.
Nothing put’s the fear of Allah into terrorists like telling them you are…”Considering” a strike.
Fourth…According to the AP: “Details were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke only on condition of anonymity.”
So…We’ve been told in no uncertain terms that leaks don’t come from the white house and in this case…it comes from 3 current administration officials. That’s bad enough but, it also comes from a FORMER administration official AND an analyst.
How exactly DOES a FORMER administration official have access to what SHOULD be classified plans???
By being a part of the Obama CAMPAIGN Administration.
CIA and other Intell analysts are not known for letting the cat out of the bag. Analysts employed by the Obama CAMPAIGN Administration to analyze the latest POLLING data however…
Well…3 CURRENT Obama Campaign Administration officials…1 FORMER Obama Campaign Administration official and an ANALYST apparently DID talk about…STRIKE club didn’t they???
Because while it’s not good for the country it IS good for the CAMPAIGN.
Why would Hillary Clinton step forward to, of all organizations, Fox News yesterday to take responsibility for the lack of security in Libya which led up to the attack?
Because, again, 24 hours before Obama is going to be asked about it in a debate…It’s good for the CAMPAIGN. Now, tonight, Obama can make the case that the buck stops with Hillary on that one and not with HIM.
It’s the Intell community that is currently under the Canadian made Obama Campaign Administration bus for spreading the false rumor that the terrorist attack in Benghazi wasn’t a terrorist attack but a spontaneous response to a You Tube video. In tonight’s debate, Obama can say the buck stops with Leon Pannetta or James Clapper on that one and not with HIM.
Here’s the real deal.
Had the Obama Campaign Administration leaked intell regarding 234 terrorist attacks in Libya since the fall of Gaddafi…Had they leaked the 48 terrorist attacks in Benghazi…Had they leaked the 2 attempts on the life of the British Ambassador, the 2 bombings at OUR Consulate in Benghazi, the Red Cross pulling up stakes there, the repeated requests for added security by our Embassy personnel, the denials of those requests, the decrease OF security for our people in Libya and on and on and on…
Had the Obama Campaign Administration HEEDED the requests for added security or, removed OUR people FROM Libya…
Libya would have seemed to anything BUT safe, anything BUT secure and anything BUT the success that Obama wanted us to BELIEVE it was due to his “leadership from behind” as the election approached.
Again…NOT good for the country but decisions based on what was good for the CAMPAIGN!!!
And when Fox News asked Hillary about the ever changing explanations regarding the root cause OF the Benghazi attack…On what did she blame THAT?
“Fog of war”
What war? Are we at war in Libya? No.
The war on terror?
I couldn’t possibly be that because on April 23rd, 2012, a senior State Department official was quoted stating: “The war on terror is over.”
Good for the country or…Good for the CAMPAIGN???
The Obama Campaign Administration had already pulled out of Iraq. The State Department, on April 23rd 2012 declared, “The war on terror is over,” and then, on May 1st, 2012, the Obama Campaign Administration signed a pact with Karzai to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
Is Iraq safer today without us there? Nope.
Have we defeated terror? Obviously not.
Are Islamists, al Qaeda and the Taliban poised to fill the Afghan vacuum when we leave? You betcha.
Good for the country? No way in hell.
Good for the CAMPAIGN to be out of the Iraq war? The war in Afghanistan AND the war on terror?
It’s nothing but a transparent fog of tyranny.
Tags: 2012, administration, attack, campaign, conservative, considering, Craig Andresen, election, foreign policy, hillary, icon, leaks, libya, Obama, politics, strike, terrorism, the national patriot, WHITE HOUSE