...continued from page 1
So we had two solid weeks of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, putting forth the "narrative" (fancy word for "spin") that the attacks were a spontaneous outburst in response to a provocative video made in America.
But when, in the debate, Romney points out the huge discrepancy between the uniform public statements of the Obama administration and the actual facts, which were known to them from the first day onward, Obama and the fawning media accused Romney of lying.
All because the word "terror" occurred somewhere in one statement Obama made. As if that single use of the word somehow erased two weeks of lies.
So let's compare the Benghazi lies with the behavior of the Bush administration that the Left has called lies for a decade.
Bush's statements on WMDs in Iraq were based on the universal judgment of our and British intelligence estimates, plus Saddam's own behavior. When he said Iraq had WMDs, Bush had every reason to believe his own statement, and no reason not to believe it.
Yet, according to the Left, "Bush lied, people died."
Obama, by contrast, had full knowledge that the attack in Libya had nothing at all to do with any spontaneous demonstration, and that it was a well-planned terrorist attack intended to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks of 2001, long before he lied to the UN about the cause of the event.
Then there's the fact that even though the Bush administration never said that Saddam had supported the original 9/11 attacks in advance, they were accused of having "led" people to that false conclusion by stressing Iraq's undoubted support of terrorism.
By contrast, Obama and his whole administration explicitly declared that the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were caused by the YouTube video that insulted Islam, and that they were definitely not planned terrorist attacks. As a result, many Americans got the false impression that the terrorist attacks were not terrorist attacks.
Only when Fox News and the few other non-Leftist media exposed the true story that there was no demonstration at the consulate in Benghazi, and that well-armed terrorists made an unprovoked nighttime assault did the administration have to back down from its "misleading" story.
Here's your bumper sticker this time completely accurate:
"People Died, Obama Lied."
How does Obama get away with it?
On the Jon Stewart show, when Obama adopted Stewart's term "not optimal" to refer to the deaths of four Americans, some in the media think that this namby-pamby term for an assault on Americans is fully excused saying the phrase was used "in jest." (John Dickerson, "The 2012 Campaign Decoder," Slate.com.)
They don't get it: No president of the United States should be jesting about the deaths of four Americans.
"Four Americans died, Mr. Stewart," he might have said, "and it happened on my watch, after my administration refused to increase our security forces in Libya. It is by far the worst thing that's happened during my presidency. I deeply regret it, and it's not a joking matter."
That's what a president of the United States would have said if a president of the United States had such poor judgment as to appear on a comedy show and talk about the death of a US ambassador with a comedian.
However, Stewart's use of the term "not optimal" was a perfect summation of the Obama's tone as he made his case that the whole Libya thing was basically trivial. Sure, it shouldn't have happened, the president was saying, and we wish it hadn't, but it doesn't change the wonderful track record of my administration.
So of course Obama wasn't offended. Stewart wasn't jesting. He was summarizing accurately.
What we see is the tragicomic spectacle of the news media and Democratic Party spinning the unspinnable and expecting to get away with it.
And what is their strategy for getting away with lies? Always, always the same: Accuse their accusers of the very same crime. "I'm a liar? No, you're the liar!"
Barrage of Lies
Let me quote from a very famous political liar, explaining how he learned the technique of slandering political opponents in order to silence them.
When this man was a jobless ne'er-do-well on the streets of Vienna before World War I, he keenly observed the three main political parties in Austria. The one he hated most was the Social Democratic Party the radical Left at that time. Here's what he says he learned:
"I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, quoted in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 22.)
Hitler and Stalin were constant users of this technique, and they did it because it worked. As Hitler went on to explain, "This is a tactic based on precise calculation of all human weaknesses, and its result will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty" (Shirer, op. cit. p. 23).
In employing this "barrage of lies and slanders," the Obama administration follows in the noble footsteps of the Clinton administration, which savaged everybody who attacked the beloved old goat, Philanderin' Bill.
Even after the accusation that Clinton lied er, "misled" the jury was shown to be true, and was tacitly admitted to by Bill himself as he accepted a resolution of the Whitewater civil case that included suspension of his law license and his paying $25,000 in legal fees, nobody on the Left apologized for the horrible and false things said about prosecutor Kenneth Starr and whistle-blowing witness Linda Tripp.
A "barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous" is the automatic response of the Left these days. No special instructions are needed. There's no conspiracy. Everybody knows the script.
The Obama administration gave the signal, and the media fell into line. The narrative was declared "YouTube video made in America provoked Muslim violence; we're so sorry that America is an insensitively free country" and the media defended this narrative savagely when Mitt Romney criticized it.
Even now, any accusation that the Obama administration lied even though they obviously lied for weeks, and we remember that they lied because we saw and heard them do it is greeted with the accusation that the person calling them on their lies is ... a liar!
CNN's Candy Crowley, pretending to be a moderator, took Obama's "given sign" and ran with it, backing up his pretense of being offended at someone actually telling the truth about his lies.
Republicans have learned that for them, when something goes wrong, cover-ups never work. Instead, the best strategy for a Republican caught in some kind of mistake or wrongdoing is to admit everything immediately and fulsomely, cover up nothing, lay their whole record bare....continued on page 3