Does it seem a tad bit hypocritical that Scott Gration lost his job as Ambassador to Kenya for the same offense that Hillary Clinton says is irrelevant in her quest for the White House? More…
The name Hillary Rodham Clinton engenders waves of revulsion in the typical conservative.
The root cause of this animus isn’t partisan politics; it is phoniness. Ms. Clinton drips with insincerity.
When God handed out the integrity gene, He seems to have bypassed the Clintons. To conservatives, it is clear that Hillary Clinton (and her husband, too) are in politics to serve themselves, not the greater good. Their passion for power trumps the public desire for a more perfect union. More…
Susan Rice’s latest foray into disingenuousness came on Charlie Rose’s show, where she proclaimed that John Boehner was being ‘partisan’ when he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netenyahu, to speak before Congress. As columnist Star Parker put it,
“[that’s] like saying that accepting an invitation from the president for a meeting in the White House is partisan because Barack Obama is a Democrat.” More…
By Tom Quiner
As our Ambassador died at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, our president’s behavior was odd.
He told us the uprising in Benghazi was spontaneous, caused by an anti Islam, American-produced film called “The Innocence of Muslims.” He asked YouTube to “review” the film to be sure it wasn’t violating their user standards. He intoned that:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
He told us this story knowing that it was a matter of time until the public would learn it was an untruth.
He went on the David Letterman Show ten days later and repeated the story, again knowing that we’d eventually discover that his story lacked one iota of integrity. All that mattered to him was that the falsehood wouldn’t be exposed until after the 2012 election.
It wasn’t, and Barack Obama was reelected.
An attack on an American embassy is the equivalent of an attack on American soil. And yet the president jumped on a plane as this crisis unfolded to attend a political fund raiser in Las Vegas.
Odd, isn’t it?
Investigative reporter, Cheryl Attkisson, formerly of CBS News, requested photographs taken in the White House of the president the day our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. Said Ms. Attkisson:
“If you know how the White House works, a photographer is omnipresent. He would have been there taking photographs in the Situation Room.
He would have been taking photographs of the president that night. So we asked for the photos, which in my view, are public information. They are paid for with tax dollars, and they release them when they want them released and they are positive .
The photo office indicated initially, this was probably in October or November 2012, that we could have the photos at the end of the day and that never materialized.
They suddenly started referring us a White House deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, who is now press secretary. And they said Josh would have to approve it, and he would never return a call or e-mail.
We would try to maintain communication with him or try to make communication with him over a long period of time, and he wouldn’t even answer.
We would go to the press, photographer’s office and say you have given us an impossible task, you have told us to talk to someone who will not talk to us.
You need to give us another route to follow to try and get these photos, and they would say no, you have to talk to Josh Earnest. So that just went down a dead-end road.
I think that is entirely unacceptable. The press offices work for the public. They are publicly paid to be responsive to the press and the public . Those White House photos belong to the public, in my view, to the extent that they would not reveal national secrets.
To this day, they remain secret.”
Odd, isn’t it, that the “most transparent” president in history (candidate Obama’s self description) is actually quite opaque.
Let’s shift to another incident involving a film. As you know, North Korea threatened to kill people who attended a film that offended them. The film is called “The Interview”, and it depicts North Korea’s dictator in a bad light.
A few reactions:
• Large movie theater chains refused to carry the movie on the advice of their lawyers who said they would be sued and would lose if anyone got hurt. Tort reform anyone?
• Small, independent art house theaters said, “heck, we’ll show the film.” God love our intrepid entrepreneurs who won’t be pushed around by bullies.
• The president, the same guy who said the “Innocence of Muslims” shouldn’t be shown since it offended Muslims, said Sony should screen “The Interview”, even though it offends North Koreans. Hmmm.
• Even more, the president said he wished that the president of Sony, Michael Lynton, would have called him before pulling the film. In fact, Sony didn’t pull the film, the big boys who control most of the movie theaters simply wouldn’t accept the product.
• And for the record, says Mr. Lynton, I did try to call the president. Mr. Lynton is a big Obama campaign supporter, but he couldn’t through to his buddy.
We are left with questions:
1. Why should an anti-Muslim film NOT be shown that may incite violence, but an anti-North Korean film that might incite violence SHOULD be shown?
2. Why would the president concoct a false narrative on Benghazi and stick with it for ten days knowing he would get caught in the lie?
3. Why won’t the White House release photographs of what the president was doing while Americans were killed in Benghazi?
4. Why do we have a tort system that subjects companies to blackmail?
5. Why would the president suggest the president of Sony didn’t try to call him, when he did?
Odd, isn’t it?
The anchor [Diane Sawyer] continued pressing, asking Clinton whether the people might be seeking from her a “sentence that begins from you ‘I should have…’?” Clinton sort of ducked that one. The accountability-heavy moment came when Sawyer’s slow and steady line of questioning on Benghazi security prompted Clinton to utter this self-contradictory and sure-to-be-repeated statement: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.” More…