Articles Comments

From Law to Grace » Government, Islam, Politics » Obama, Nixonian Mendacity & “Pass the Buck” Democrats

Obama, Nixonian Mendacity & “Pass the Buck” Democrats

George Costanza: Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.

In light of the lies that have been told and re-told by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House Spokesman Jay Carney and perhaps even President Obama himself, this quote from “Seinfeld” should be tweaked to read: “Just remember, it’s not a lie if you want to believe it.” It is obvious that many “pass the buck” Democrats wanted to believe that an internet trailer (not even the movie) for “Innocence of Muslims” was responsible for provoking an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the 11th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. What a coincidence that a movie trailer released in July would lead to a “spontaneous” attack that just happened to fall on September 11.

I’m not sure if Clinton, Biden and the President are still in denial over the horrific loss of life in Benghazi and their incompetent cover-up or if their hubris knows no bounds when it comes to staying in power. Clearly we are witnessing a return of Nixonian mendacity which goes to the very top, regardless of whether or not Hillary Clinton wants to “take a bullet” for the President. Following reports a few days ago that Bill Clinton was devising strategies for his wife should the President throw the State Department under the bus (Mr. Obama has much practice in this art) for the security failures at the Benghazi Consulate, Mrs. Clinton has now fallen on her sword and taken responsibility for failing to adequately protect Ambassador Stephens and others in Libya.

One wonders what deal the Clintons have made (or renegotiated as the case may be) with the devil that would allow Hillary to take the fall for the Benghazi attack while still preserving her reputation for a possible run for the White House in 2016. Perhaps the Clintons believe that the American people in general and Democrats in particular have short memories. They are probably right, although what Hillary said today should come back to haunt her at every turn in her political future. After Benghazi, she is not fit to be in the White House, much less answer the While House phone at 3:00 in the morning. If she answers as President the way that she did as Secretary of State, the loss of American lives would be catastrophic.

Of course, the Commander-in-Chief and the Vice Commander-in-Chief — President Obama and Vice President Biden — are AWOL when it comes to the Benghazi attacks. From appearances on “The View” to his speech at the United Nations — where he mentioned the “Innocence of Muslims” video no less than six times — President Obama continued to peddle the lie that a movie that no one has seen was responsible for inciting Muslims to violence. He is either totally incompetent and unworthy to be Commander-in-Chief or he is the most mendacious President since Richard Nixon. Or both.

Instead of stepping up and taking responsibility for the lack of security at our Consulate, the President was content with letting his Secretary of State take one for the team. Like throwing folks under the bus, Mr. Obama has become a master at blame-shifting. That reality has not escaped some in Congress:

Clinton’s statement of responsibility was “a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever,” the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, “The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there.”

When it comes to national security and the safety of Americans — both at home and abroad — it has often been said that “politics stops at the water’s edge.”  That was a reality — even if for a short period of time — following the evil attacks perpetrated by Islamic terrorists on 9/11/01. That would have been the reality following the terrorist attacks on our Consulate in Benghazi but for the Obama Administration’s obfuscation and cover-up of the real reasons for the attacks on the Anniversary of 9/11 and their bald-faced lies that “the video made them do it.” That President Obama seems more comfortable with Nixon’s mendacity than with Truman’s “the buck stops here” philosophy tells you just about all you need to know about the “leader” of the modern-day “pass the buck” Democratic Party.   

 

 

 

Filed under: Government, Islam, Politics · Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to "Obama, Nixonian Mendacity & “Pass the Buck” Democrats"

  1. Richard says:

    Right, and republicans tell no lies? Sorry, but I’m 70 years old, and I see truth blending with fiction coming out of both parties. Instead of wasting my time arguing both sides of the incidents in your post, I’d like to note a dangerous trend. I find it interesting that we try to tag republicans with the “Christian” vote, and anyone who would vote otherwise is left thinking they are non-Christian. So, what do we do with the large number of democratic believers: African-Americans, American Baptists, Methodists, United Presbyterians, etc., who have very real and deep concerns for how we tell and live Christ with the poor, the wounded, in prisons, etc. You get the picture. If we are not careful, we will be telling the unsaved that, in addition to believing John 3:16, they have to be conservative republicans to believe. We have narrowed Christianity down so far to the right that, for some of us, we’re not sure if the Lord of the Gospel would recognize it.

    1. Howell Scott says:

      Richard,

      First, thanks for taking the time to read and to comment this morning. Second, I thought that the title of my post was fairly obvious that I believe that all politicians — regardless of party — lie. The champion of mendacity for any party continues to be Richard Nixon, a Republican. I’m also fairly certain that my favorite President in my lifetime — Republican Ronald Reagan — probably told a whopper or two, especially with regards to the Iran-Contra Affair. Lastly, let me address the majority of your comment by pointing you to a post that I wrote last week entitled, “Can You Be a Christian If You Are a Democrat?” Don’t let the title fool you. It was meant to be provocative, but perhaps not how you might think. I think I do “get the picture” of what you are saying, but I would love to continue the dialogue after you have read that post. Thanks and God bless,

      Howell

  2. Bennett Willis says:

    I think that you have been too long out of Grundy. :)

  3. Bennett Willis says:

    Regarding your quote at the start of this post, there are a number of articles that say that facts have ceased to matter to most. I would hazard a guess that facts matter little to “the base” of either party. Since a significant fraction of my “Friends” on Facebook are conservative, I see what they say and post regularly–and am amazed and puzzled.

    Time magazine has a couple of pages on this and there are several “fact finders (and facts) don’t matter” articles around “the Net.” One of the startling observations of the Time article was that after being “confronted by the fact” the supporters of the “non-fact” were even more convicted that they were right.

    1. Howell Scott says:

      Bennett,

      I am afraid that you are right when it comes to partisans (“the base) not believing facts which might contradict their own thinking or which might put their candidates in an unflattering light. I am amused at all of these “fact checkers” that have popped up and try to determine whether or not Candidate A or Candidate B is telling the truth. Of course, these “fact checkers” have their own biases in the first place, which makes it that much harder to determine the “truth.” I think what has been the most egregious thing about the Benghazi attack is the blatant disregard for the facts (or even lack of facts) by so many within the Obama Administration and how they used the video as an excuse for the terrorist attack on 9/11/12. The “cover-up” is always worse than the underlying crime. In this case, I believe that the Obama Administration did not want to be seen as dropping the ball and allowing a successfull attack which resulted in the death of an American Ambassador. Instead of saying nothing (which may have been wiser), they compounded the problem by saying untrue things for over a week, particularly with regard to the video that they KNEW was not the cause of the Benghazi attack. But, as in politics, I think that people will view it from their own lens. As for being away from Grundy for too long, you maybe right :-) Thanks and God bless,

      Howell

  4. Jenn says:

    Here’s a link with a different perspective as to who is throwing whom under the bus. I think I’m leaning a little more this way and I think after the election a lot is going to be leaked on this debacle. watch for language on this site if you explore further.

    http://minx.cc/?post=333870

    Politicians lie no doubt. I don’t know that I’ve even witnessed anything as heinous as the President of the United States and the Secretary of State standing before flag drapped coffins and lying all because an election is coming up and they want to keep pretending that appeasing terrorist will somehow make them like us.

    1. Howell Scott says:

      Jenn,

      I agree with you about the heinousness of the Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton’s all-too-apparent lies by the flag-drapped coffins when they knew at that moment that the video had absolutely nothing to do with the Benghazi attack. That is why their continued behavior — including V.P. Biden’s shading of the truth in his debate — are particularly mendacious. This Administration is fast becoming the equivalent of the Nixon Administration when it comes to truth-telling, lies, and obfuscation. Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. God bless,

      Howell

  5. Richard says:

    Howell: OK, I’ve now read your excellent previous post which addressed some of my observations. Thank you for calling me attention to it. I believe your concerns are similar to mine. It seems we have drawn for ourselves a narrow circle of believers, when the community of Christ may be somewhat larger, and most certainly it embraces believers who live out their faith in ways that may not have occurred to us in Southern Baptist life. The last thing we need to do is to identify political party with faith and faith action. To do so is to lend the party a quality or standing it does not deserve. Politics can be human, cheap, self-serving, and, rarely, about truth. To do so also leads us to prioritize certain violations of God’s teaching above others. And, by the way, I know right where Grundy is—I served in eastern VA in my early years. Best to you, R

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: