It is less than a month before the 2012 election and many voters still do not really know Barrack Obama. They know his image as a charismatic speaker, and they know, in the 2008 election, he promised” hope” and “change.” Most reasonable people would agree that he has delivered neither.
Although Obama identifies all the ills of America – lost jobs, stagnant wages, the high cost of college, the economic and financial crisis, the need to get off foreign oil, to clean up the environment, healthcare, and the problems of the inner cities, etc. - he has done little to change anything for the better. No one questions that Obama knows how to point the finger and wag it with the best of them. No one doubts that pointing the finger and identifying problems, for most Americans, is effective politics. Although, in the past Obama played to the problems most Americans relate to – the blue collar kitchen table issues -he is applying his craft to make personal attacks upon the character of Mitt Romney spending millions of dollars on advertisements designed solely for the purpose of attacking the character of Mitt Romney.
Governor Romney beat President Obama badly in the first debate on national television, and Obama had a quick excuse for his failed performance. The very next day after the debate Obama came out guns blazing contending that his poor performance was a result of Mitt Romney being a “liar.” Obama has put into play the issue of “character” necessary, in most people’s minds, to being a good and effective President. The character of a candidate is the most important thing to consider in picking a president. Character is who the candidate is more than anything he says or promises, or how well he says it. Abe Lincoln once said, “Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” Character is the steak not the sizzle. Character is what one is. Character is the rudder of the boat, and the issues are the passengers. The passengers will unlikely get to their destination if there is no rudder to steer the boat.
Accordingly, not only is Mitt Romney’s character an issue, but so, too, is the character of the President. Obama’s reaction to his loss of the first presidential debate was not to reflect upon his failures, but to, out of the blue, accuse Romney of lying about everything he said. One of Obama’s followers went so far as to say that if Romney’s mouth was moving, he was lying.
Most reasonable people that follow the news would not be able to identify any cases where Romney lied. It appears that Obama fabricated this character assassination without any basis whatsoever other than pure political theatre. Obama knows that his loyal followers believe anything he says regardless of the facts.
A good indication that Obama is the one that is disingenuous is evident by his attempt to cover-up the reasons why Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered. The Obama administration contended over and over again on the Sunday talk shows and other media outlets that there was no prior indication that an attack was imminent. Like a chorus they contended there was “nothing unusual” about the day of the attack, Sept.11.
Congress is conducting hearings chaired by Representative Darrell Issa to get to the truth about the Banghazi murder of Ambassador Stevens. According to the State Department, the speed at which the murder of the four Americans unfolded made it impossible to defend, even with some increased security measures that had been requested – but not fulfilled before Sept. 11. In fact, in testimony before Congress, two of the Obama administration’s personnel testified that there were no signs of any problems until the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. According to witnesses, the first sign of any problem came at 9:40 p.m. when diplomatic security agents heard loud talking outside the compound along with gunfire. Obama contended that a spontaneous assault occurred, which took advantage. However, Obama administration officials said, “That was not our conclusion.”
The two senior officials offered riveting details of the attack by what one official described as “dozens of armed men” marauding from building to building in the enormous compound that housed Ambassador Stevens, and, later firing mortars on a U.S. installation less than a mile away. The attack upon the Stevens compound created havoc on the four-building complex, which included one building that was used as a residence with bedrooms. When the attack started, the Ambassador and two of his security personnel took refuge in a fortified room in the residence, but the attackers penetrated the building. The attackers doused the building with diesel fuel and set it ablaze. The three men moved to a bathroom to escape the smoke so they would be able to breathe.
Somehow, during the smoke-filled chaos they were unable to find the Ambassador. It is still unclear how the Ambassador got to the hospital where he was declared dead. Personnel at the hospital found his cell in his pocket and began calling numbers which resulted in a determination as to who he was.
Although the Obama Administration has contended the Libya security personnel in Benghazi were out manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assaults, some question the contention that America, a super power, could not handle the attackers. This is especially true since the fire fight went on for over five hours.
Someone is lying about what occurred in Benghazi. The truth is very important at this time, especially since Americans will vote on a new president Nov. 6. Obama and his people seem to be employing a common political trick – accuse others of doing what he is doing. This is not a question of opinion, it is a question of fact.
By D. Lindley Young