The president is lying about Benghazi
We all remember when Bill Clinton argued that it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. We were all disgusted that the office of the President had become so low that we were deciphering legalistic terms and arguing about sex acts. Oh for the good ole days.
President Obama's disregard for the truth has made Bill Clinton seem like a novice. Hisstatements are always riddled with inconsistency. Many could easily have been dissected with a curious media, but that hasn't happen. Very few people can lie as well.
On September 11, 2012 we were attacked in Libya, Benghazi. Leon Panetta testified yesterday before congress that the President was only briefed once at a previously scheduled meeting around 5:00 pm. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff were already under attack at that time. Were they in danger, and who defines danger?
Did the President not care about their safety specifically ordid he not expect things to escalatefurther. No one knows.
The President stated in a press conference on November 14, 2013 as reported.
"If people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks," Obama said. "Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives."
"As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.
"I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger -- whether they're civilian or military -- because that's our number one priority."

This President was negligent is many ways by failing to engage directly in these events. We all hope that if this were us or one of our family members we could count on the support of our President. Maybe he was not interested and just didn't have time for that "3:00 phone call". He was in the middle of a difficult re-election campaign.
With something that ended so badly the President was going to need a statement that would insulate him from liability. His minions would accept it, his detractors would not and the compliant media would protect him.
When the President said "immediately" that must have meant when I woke up the next morning. Here we go again.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
- Are Judges Complicit in Lawfare?
- Deep Dive: The Signal Chat Leak
- Mark Steyn’s Reversal of Fortune
- Where We Need Musk’s Chainsaw the Most
- Trump Is Not Destroying the Constitution, but Restoring It
Blog Posts
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge
- Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out
- Watch white leftist women’s brains breaking—and repairing—in real-time
- The last, best hope ...
- In Pennsylvania, are Democrats stealing votes again?
- Knife control comes to the U.K.: Prime Minister Starmer bans Ninja swords
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Was Vietnam worth the cost?
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal
- Anti-Trump lawfare: yes, it's a conspiracy
- Criminal attack? You're on your own.