Christopher Stevens: Obama lied; he died
Here’s one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we’ve been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.
Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama’s amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president.
Here, for example, was NBC the day after.
Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was throwing the kitchen sink at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include — on the anniversary of 9/11 — one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out) incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign .
And here was CBS the day after. (Sounds to me like they have the same White House press officer dictate their stories for them…)
(CBS News) The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney’s handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.
“The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake,” Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. “There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they’re a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points.”
Er, with respect Steve Schmidt – and all those other experty experts consulted by CBS – surely what the American people REALLY want when their country is attacked is the truth. They’d also like to be assured that everything possible had been done to prevent the attack happening; that when the attack was taking place, everything possible was done to try to save the lives of the ambassador and his team and that in the aftermath, serious attempts would be made to punish those responsible, reprimand those culpable for any security lapses, and learn important lessons about why the attack happened and how to avoid further such disasters occurring in future. Little, if any of this seems to have been done.
Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone’s fault but the Obama administration’s. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn’t that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..
Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama’s manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we’re prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn’t quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle’s the Benghazi scandal hasn’t had much play.
But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.
Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.
This is a big deal.
The Obama administration’s duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who’ve been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn’t have predicted. And while it’s nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realise that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it’s hardly a situation you might call – hmm what’s the word? Oh yeah – “optimal” for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President’s wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there’s nothing wrong with the Middle East’s intractable problems that can’t be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach programme….
While intended to demonstrate how dumb liberals are, the author quotes his libertarian friend in stating, “No really [liberals are] stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”
However, here is the irony. That statement is more applicable to conservatives than liberals, making the entire article an exercise in psychological delusions and imposing the insecurities of one ideological community on its competition. Kinda the same way Fox News is always attacking the “mainstream media” for liberal bias when the truth is that Fox News is designed to appeal to conservatives, and therefore anything left of right, even when it’s in the center, is part of some evil conspiracy.
Democrats listen to scientists and form their public policies based on what scientists tell them need to be done. Doing what the smartest guys in the room tell you to do isn’t dumb. It’s smart. Republicans, on the other hand, treat scientists with hostility if whatever the scientists say runs counter to what common conservative thought.
Same deal with economists. In the past four years, Democrats have followed the advice of our nation’s smartest economists, who nearly unanimously warned that if action wasn’t taken, America would sink into a second Great Depression. Republicans advocates courses of policy which many economists came out as saying would stagnate and ultimately destroy the American economy. When President George W. Bush was presented with those choices, he was forced to pick between doing what was right for America versus what was right in terms of conservative thought. And he picked America. I know some of Congress’ top economists, and they’ve all told me the same thing. Liberals come to them looking for advice as to what policies would do America the most good, whereas conservatives come to them looking for advice as to how to make it look like their policies would do the most good. And this has apparently been a trend for decades.
There is a reason the vast majority of scientists are Democrats. And it’s not because scientists are dumb. And it doesn’t have to do with feeling insulted because mainstream conservative America has an open hostility towards intellectualism and science. It’s because conservative public policy, in its current incarnation, contradicts what our brightest minds tell us needs to be done, and repeatedly uses every opportunity to advance ideological goals rather than advance intelligent public policy which will make America a better and stronger nation.
Despite what the author implies, and what most conservatives believe, liberalism isn’t about taking a dump on America or freedom. Or ruining people’s lives. And being evil. In fact, true liberalism is nothing like what the conservative media paints it as.
Modern liberalism is about true fiscal responsibility, which is more complex and intricate than one tax cut for the rich after another. What conservatives don’t want us to notice is that the debt we have today is in large part the consequence of the conservative economic policies of the past decade in which massive tax cuts were granted without being paid for, on the assumption that the stimulus of the tax cuts would produce higher revenue streams as the economy improved. This has been proven false. And it only costs us trillions of dollars to learn the lesson: conservative economics doesn’t work. At least, not in the real world.
Modern liberalism is about freedom. Be it women’s freedom over their own bodies, to religious freedom and people’s right to be free of others imposing their religious teachings on them.
Modern liberalism is about information, and making the best decisions based on what our most brilliant scientists, economists, and sociologists tell us needs to be done to make tomorrow better than today.
Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility and communal responsibility. And no, that’s not the same thing as communism. Or socialism. Or whatever the bobble-heads at Fox have instructed conservatives to believe. It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior. It’s about looking after each other since everyone can have a run of bad luck, rather than living in a purely competitive society lacking in compassion.
Modern liberalism is about being strong and sensible, and an advocate for freedom all across this great globe – not hunting down evil people (though Obama proved we’re better at that too).
If I believed everything that this author, not to mention conservatives in general, seem to believe about liberalism… now THAT would be dumb.
Is this some kind of satiric piece you’ve written?
Here’s my favourite bit from your post:
“Modern liberalism is about personal responsibility…”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… (takes large breath)…hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.
Your comments are hilarious because one reads them realizing you are clueless.
Frank Tavos says it best HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No wait, here’s an even better one!
“It’s about rewarding personal responsibility, such as buying health care, and punishing irresponsible behavior.”
Do you mean irresponsible behaviour like:
– wanting big government to stay the hell out of our lives?
– wanting to benefit from the fruits of our own labour and initiative?
– saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?
Need I go on? You sir, like all liberals, are a lover of government tyranny. You want to tell everyone how to live their lives, to fit your own small-minded image of how society should be. You want to stifle discussion and legislate everyone to think as you do.
Since I can’t believe that someone who writes as well as you do is as naive and ignorant as the content of your post indicates, I am forced to conclude that you are truly dumb.
The other night on Hardball, I heard Matthews say “we all know that Obama is a genius…”
What???….Where are the facts to support that? Certainly not in the manner in which he has led his country.
Keep exposing, laughing, ridiculing. It may not make them watch what they say, but it is great fun and we all can use the good laugh.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha……….Thanks, I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time.
Hey look, there goes a personally responsible person with my tax money to buy dope.
Brent S is quite correct. If Republicans didn’t want to interfere in people’s lives then they’d ALL stop opposing gay marriage, let people take whatever drugs they wanted, stop trying to force people to say prayers in schools, stop forcing soldiers to take part in religious activities, and stop trying to interfere with women’s reproductive rights. I’m not saying these are all necessarily evil things to do, just against libertarian principles.
Republicans who support these policies should remember that when they point the ‘interfering government’ finger at liberals, they’re pointing three of their own fingers back at themselves.
“saying whatever one wants, whenever one wants, as is the right of all free people?”
As opposed to – “I don’t want to do it, therefore it should be illegal”.
Keep laughing, because the joke is on you!
You haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. You appear to have mistaken me for a Republican. Your comments are founded on ignorance, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
The fact is, I don’t want to control your life or anyone else’s. I’m a conservative of the libertarian persuasion. I agree with you on the some of the points you raised. I’m also not saying government has no role to play in society. I just think it should play a much smaller role. I don’t think government should be forcing soldiers (or anyone) to say prayers or take part in religious ceremonies. On the other hand, I also don’t think that the government should forbid soldiers or citizens from practicing their religion openly. I also don’t think that recreational drugs should regulated by government. The so-called War on Drugs is an incredible waste of time and money.
As for gay marriage, the term itself is meaningless. Marriage has been defined since time immemorial as a union between a man and a woman. It is of benefit to society to enforce social mores through social means, not by getting the government to change such a fundamental principle of our society to pander to a vocal minority. It is the left in general and gays in particular who are the ones who are trying to force the issue (through government coercion) by redefining the very essence of the meaning of marriage.
As for the ridiculous euphemism, “women’s reproductive rights”, if you are saying the government doesn’t have the power to enforce the criminal law to protect the lives of unborn human beings, then you’re advocating anarchy. I’m not an anarchist. As I said before, the government has a small role to play in society, and enforcing laws against murder fall into that limited bailiwick.
So I stand behind my original statement in saying that I believe in and want:
– big government to stay the hell out of our lives;
– everyone to benefit from the fruits of their own labour and initiative; and
– the right to say whatever one wants, whenever one wants.
So, actually, the joke’s on you, because you’ve set up a straw man and knocked it down, but you haven’t even begun to deal with the issues I’ve raised.
(I hope James will be OK selling Watermelons at a discount on this website, when Amazon in the past has refused to sell books which are available cheaper online elsewhere? Although maybe this policy has changed, or maybe it doesn’t apply since it is amazon.com (USA), not amazon.co.uk? Is Watermelons going to come out in the UK, or are all the publishers here too biased to bring it out?
I also c0uld have said it in Latin, but philistines like Andy-boy would probably consider that a “dead language”. To wit:
Futue te ipsum, et caballum teum. (trans: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!)
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
When’s the next Coward novel out? Not trying to put any pressure on you, but I need another fix!