Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times
It is no surprise by now if you've been paying any attention to the Benghazi scandal that the Obama administration totally ignored reports from the ground in Libya on September 11, 2012 when it came to developing talking points for the American public. From the beginning, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary of Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney all told the American people the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were a result of a protest over a YouTube video raging out of control. As we've known for months and revisited Wednesday through testimony from whistleblower Greg Hicks, there was no protest. The video claim is completely fabricated. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and was reported as such to Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. Reports of a protest outside of the consulate were never issued from Libya to Washington because there wasn't one.Regardless, the White House, not the intelligence community, came up with falsified talking points. According to ABC News, they were changed 12 times.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.FLASHBACK:
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.And about that whole al Qaeda thing? State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland really didn't like that, so she had it scrubbed. A final meeting at the White House before the talking points were used publicly eliminated any reference to al Qaeda and the warning signs about an attack and terrorism in Benghazi.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
The CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:The CIA and the intelligence community were thrown under the bus by the Obama administration on Benghazi from day one, yet, the CIA was the only agency willing to actually tell the truth about what happened. The CIA gave the White House and the State Department accurate and factual information about al Qaeda and terrorist threats in Benghazi. They were ignored before the attack and then stripped after the threats came to fruition.
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-changed-12-times-n1592400
What the Hearings Mean
"Obama never tried, U.S. diplomats died." Shocking lies by the Obama Administration over Benghazi were unmasked on May 8. Testimony about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya were heard by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA).Some of what was expected did not materialize. Other bombshells turned out bigger. Clearly, we still do not know everything. Jaw-dropping topics are being discussed by other conservative journalists. But deep thinkers need to consider further points:
First, Gregory Hicks is the only person so far to speak in public about these events who was actually in Libya at the time. Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli, Libya -- that is, Deputy Ambassador. As soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens died, Hicks became Acting Ambassador to Libya.
However, we still have not heard from anyone who was in Benghazi during these events. The 30-40 survivors are still in mysterious seclusion. Their eyewitness accounts will offer future revelations.
Second, Hicks dropped a bombshell: The USA never asked Libya for permission to fly through Libyan airspace to defend the consulate in Benghazi. The Obama administration never intended to come to the defense of Ambassador Stevens. Hicks -- fluent in Arabic and familiar with Libya's government -- testified that Libya would have granted permission.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) keeps reminding us that no one knew how long the attack would last. In fact, it was 3 days later when the embassy staff in Tripoli returned from evacuation to an annex. So at the time, U.S. F-16's might still have been needed long past the first 7 hours. Hicks confirmed that he thought the situation was still dangerous for 3 days. Yet the U.S.A. never requested Libyan permission in case U.S. aircraft might be needed.
Third, Hicks asked the U.S. military to help immediately at the start of the 7-hour siege of the Benghazi consulate. F-16 fighter jets could have reached Benghazi in 2 to 3 hours from the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, Hicks testified. The embassy's defense attaché was told that F-16's could be over the Consulate in 2-3 hours.
That means the ambassador and 3 other Americans did not need to die. Remember that 2 died near the middle and 2 near the end of the 7-hour ordeal. Jets could have arrived prior to the last 4-5 hours of the assault. Hicks testified that Libyans were deeply afraid of U.S. airpower after months of bombing during the 2011 revolution. Just knowing that U.S. jets were in the area would have sent the consulate attackers fleeing, Hicks testified.
However, Hicks repeatedly emphasized that there were no U.S. fuel tankers in the area to refuel the jets in the air. F-16's have a range of -- fuel supply for -- 2,000 nautical miles. The distance from Aviano to Benghazi is 1,050 miles. If I had been president, I would ordered "Fly 'em dry!" and let the jets land in Tripoli after buzzing over the Benghazi Consulate for 90 minutes to two hours. A second flight of F-16's could have flown straight to Tripoli to refuel at the airport in Tripoli first.
But this is the failure of Obama's presidential leadership. What about NATO? Obama should have been on the phone to the leaders of Greece, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, asking -- "What do ya got nearby?" Why are we considering only U.S. assets and ignoring the rest of Europe, just across the Mediterranean?
It is only 450 miles from Athens, Greece. Greece's Hellenic Air Force purchased 170 F-16s not long ago. Greece's F-16's were only 1 hour away from Benghazi. France has been conducting military air operations in North Mali and Chad in Africa.
Greek F-16s could have been buzzing the Benghazi consulate within 90 minutes, scaring the attackers within an inch of their lives. If we had an actual president in the White House, if this had been an actual presidency (like, say, that of Ronald Reagan), Barack Obama would have been on the phone to Greek President Karolos Papoulias instead of sleeping while American diplomats died.
The largest U.S. Air Force base in Europe is Ramstein in Germany, only 1,367 miles from Benghazi. So by the time the F-16's from Aviano were running dry, a fuel tanker from Ramstein Air Force Base could have been pulling up alongside to refuel the F-16s. Or fighters from Ramstein could have relieved the Aviano jets, allowing those to land in Tripoli.
Also, Lt. Col. Oliver North asked on Fox News why weren't assets pre-positioned on the anniversary of 9/11? There should have been assets on standby in the overall region.
Fourth, there was indeed a "stand down" order preventing U.S. special forces from defending the Consulate, Hicks confirmed. Special forces at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli were ordered to "stand down" by General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Lt. Col. Gibson was a commander assigned to the embassy in Tripoli from Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA). Gibson and the special forces team were "furious" at being ordered not to help the diplomats in Benghazi, Hicks testified. Hicks quoted Gibson as saying, "This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military."
Hicks had arranged from Libya's government a C-130 aircraft owned by Libya to fly to Benghazi to evacuate the Consulate. Col. Gibson and Hicks agreed that the special forces team would fly on the C-130 to Benghazi to protect the diplomats being evacuated. But over the summer, authority over the special forces contingent in Libya had been transferred from the embassy to AFRICOM. Gen. Ham ordered the special forces team to stay in Tripoli.
These were highly-trained individuals with specialized skills who would have played crucial roles in Benghazi. They were also fresh troops to relieve the exhausted team in Benghazi after fighting all night.
Fifth, a "FEST" response was denied by Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department. A "Foreign Emergency Support Team" is the U.S. Government's solution for this type of crisis. We learned that a FEST contains members of many agencies and departments, so that the FEST can access the full range of U.S. Government resources.
Mark Thompson immediately requested deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team to Libya. The U.S. State Department refused. It was "not the right time" to deploy a FEST, Hillary Clinton's leadership decided. Thompson was Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at the Department of State, in continuous contact with the embassy in Tripoli. Thompson explained that a FEST airplane is always on standby to respond to just this type of emergency.
But this is nonsense. A FEST is uniquely qualified to assess the situation on the ground, evaluate everything, and coordinate appropriate action from across the U.S. Government. A FEST is a command center on-site, specially equipped and trained. So, a FEST on-site is the appropriate means to evaluate the circumstances. So, it is absurd to suggest a FEST deployment would be "too soon."
An email from Kathleen Austin-Ferguson, the White House discouraged FEST response. Did you notice that it was both "too soon" and also "too late" to tack any effective action to protect our diplomats in Libya? When bureaucrats and politicians don't want to do something there are certain standard tactics they use.
Moreover, wouldn't you think that if a Deputy Assistant Secretary for counterterrorism is declaring an emergency and asking for a FEST response, that the Secretary Hillary Clinton would be told? If not, someone should be fired. If yes, Hillary should have been fired. Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks had ordered the annex chief to activate the emergency response plan. Shouldn't that be immediately reported to both Clinton and Obama?
Sixth, it is already being widely reported this week that talk of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim YouTube video was a monstrous and massive lie. However, an important point should be noted. Hicks testified that the massive lies by Ambassador Susan Rice caused a severe rift with the Libyan government.
Libya knew the video had nothing to do with it. So Libya's government was shocked and puzzled. Libya stopped cooperating for about 2 weeks.
This fiasco of incompetence would end dozens of careers if Benghazi occurred under a Republican administration. But Hillary Clinton set the standard with her "It's 3 AM and a phone is ringing in the White House" campaign ad from 2008 against Barack Obama. We will have to see if Republicans have any guts and Democrats have any integrity.
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama
In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.
Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped.
Hill testimony of State Department whistleblowers might change that, but it’s doubtful given the one-sided reporting so far.
The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration.
” to the hearings and accused the GOP of going after the “most popular Democrat,” Hillary Clinton. The New York Times public editor criticized her own paper’s Benghazi coverage and The Washington Post’s Twitter account inexplicably mocked those Tweeting about the case as “Chick-fil-A lovers.”
AP even called it a “GOP” hearing, to make sure readers saw it as partisan.A Politico
story about CBS showed the truly insidious nature of media bias on this
story and how the network held back Emmy award-winning reporter Sharyl
Attkisson. “CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close
to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told Politico,” wrote
Dylan Byers. So much so that Attkisson is “in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract.” As a result, she hadn’t even reported on the Libya attack for five months.It hasn’t just been CBS that has been trying to corral this story. New York Times coverage might still damage the administration even though that paper has tried to prevent it. MSNBC's sometime conservative, former Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, even Tweeted about Thursday’s Times story, saying it “should cause great concerns in the White House.”
That piece, “Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion,”
detailed State Department retaliation against one witness, saying “the
prospects for the 2016 presidential election” could be impacted. Of course, the article minimized that impact. “Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration,” wrote three Times staffers.
Unbecoming? Quite the understatement. Hey, sorry we ruined your career. That’s so unbecoming.
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan took her own paper to task
,
but also blamed Fox News for having “fomented” criticism of the Times.
“In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense
is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play
down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it
most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than
one about national security mistakes and the lack of government
transparency,” she concluded.The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank treated the testimony as if witnesses were lying. His column called the sworn comments a “yarn”
and referred to our No. 2 diplomat in Libya as a “virtuoso
storyteller.” Milbank pushed the standard lefty response you can expect
to see at least till November, 2016: “Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the
former secretary of state Wednesday.”It wasn’t just the traditional media spinning for Team Obama. Lefty outlets did their darnedest to downplay the death of four Americans, including the only U.S. ambassador killed since 1979.
On MSNBC, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd undercut the scandal on the May 8 “Morning Joe.”
Todd called the decision to not send more special ops forces to Benghazi “very rational.” Host Rachel Maddow
blasted the GOP on her May 8 show for an organized conspiracy to make
Obama resign, calling it “the most ambitious thing they have done.”Comedian Jon Stewart devoted 8 and a half minutes attacking the GOP for the hearings, even bringing up Nixon cover-ups and saying the party has “a history of hysteria.” Increasingly, his role isn’t to make jokes. It’s as Obama’s Youth Ambassador/Spinmeister.
The liberal propaganda site Huffington Post incredibly didn’t even mention the hearings on the front page, just an attack on Fox’s coverage. Buried on the Politics page was the approved Democratic spin: “Benghazi Hearing Reveals Incompetence, But No Cover-Up.”
Instead, it found room for stories on food addiction, “the female word for blowjob,” and “The Incredible Name Kevin Spacey Picked For His Rescue Dog.”Other liberal sites went even further, ignoring the hearing and the testimony entirely. The Nation, Alternet and Democracy Now had no visible coverage. That’s a far cry from how the left reacted to even something as mundane as the NRA convention
, where no terrorists killed four Americans.It doesn’t really matter how they spin it, the news continues to get out. But if all major news outlets do is cover for the administration, they may well succeed in protecting their 2016 candidate.
You Can't Handle The Truth
While
most Americans are apparently distracted by the NBA playoffs, or
Dancing With The Stars, or whatever other distraction that consumes
them, we are confronted with a President, his political machine and
Administration that are arguably best described as a tyranny.
From the President's recent commencement speech at Ohio State University, we again learned his world-view...
"Unfortunately,
you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as
nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of
all our problems...They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just
around the corner. You should reject these voices."
Arguably,
tyranny could include allowing Americans serving overseas to be killed
for political expediency and cover, the tyrant President's election and
political career being more important than citizen patriots'
lives....this being the optics of the Benghazi scandal.
Ignoring
the lie of the video that the President, his political enablers, and
the toadies of the liberal main-stream media peddled for weeks after the
attack, other aspects of the President's actions are instructive. His
"tyranny" brings to mind this scene from the classic movie A Few Good Men.
In this scene, Tom Cruise's character, Kaffee, is questioning the
command and control tyrant Marine Colonel Jessep, played by Jack
Nicholson....
Kaffee: Colonel, a moment ago you said that you ordered Lieutenant Kendrick to tell his men that Santiago wasn't to be touched.
Col. Jessep: That's right.
Kaffee: And Lieutenant Kendrick was clear on what you wanted?
Col. Jessep: Crystal.
Kaffee: Any chance Lieutenant Kendrick ignored the order?
Col. Jessep: Ignored the order?
Kaffee: Any chance he forgot about it?
Col. Jessep: No.
Kaffee: Any chance Lieutenant left your office and said, 'The old man is wrong'?
Col. Jessep: No.
Kaffee: When Lieutenant Kendrick spoke to the Platoon, and ordered them not to touch Santiago, any chance they ignored him?
Col. Jessep: That's right.
Kaffee: And Lieutenant Kendrick was clear on what you wanted?
Col. Jessep: Crystal.
Kaffee: Any chance Lieutenant Kendrick ignored the order?
Col. Jessep: Ignored the order?
Kaffee: Any chance he forgot about it?
Col. Jessep: No.
Kaffee: Any chance Lieutenant left your office and said, 'The old man is wrong'?
Col. Jessep: No.
Kaffee: When Lieutenant Kendrick spoke to the Platoon, and ordered them not to touch Santiago, any chance they ignored him?
Col. Jessep: You ever served in an infantry unit, son?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: Ever served in a forward area?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: Ever put your life in another man's hands: asked him to put his life in yours?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: We follow orders, son. We follow orders, or people die; it's that simple. Are we clear?
Kaffee: Yes, sir.
Col. Jessep: [nearly shouting] Are we clear?
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I've just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez; if you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? (bold added for emphasis) Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: Ever served in a forward area?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: Ever put your life in another man's hands: asked him to put his life in yours?
Kaffee: No, sir.
Col. Jessep: We follow orders, son. We follow orders, or people die; it's that simple. Are we clear?
Kaffee: Yes, sir.
Col. Jessep: [nearly shouting] Are we clear?
Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I've just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez; if you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? (bold added for emphasis) Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
Why
does this sound familiar...what is the relationship to the Benghazi
scandal? Questions were posed to President Obama in October 2012
regarding Benghazi, by ABC News Kyle Clarke (bold added for emphasis)...
"Clark
pressed again..."Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"
he asked. President Obama...."Well, we are finding out exactly what
happened,"the president again said. "I can tell you, as I've said over
the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.
Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it
doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can
bring them to justice. And
I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military,
the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people
were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out
exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that
we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.'
Analogous to the movie, what we learn by the President's own words is:
- The President is clearly is in charge of a response to the Benghazi event
- The President's immediate orders were that our personnel are to be secured by whatever means necessary
- All agencies were clearly directed by the President as the number one priority to make sure that people were safe...
The
obvious question for the President is the same as Tom Cruise's line of
questioning of Colonel Jessep...if the President gave these orders and
his orders are always followed, then why were these four Americans
murdered in a prolonged terrorist attack with no relief sent to assist
them?
The
Benghazi debacle is another example of the lengths the President is
willing to go to retain his powerful position. Innocent Americans were
left to die in a prolonged terror attack, without benefit of military
relief, while those in power apparently refused to provide such relief,
for fear of affecting the President's election prospects. The details,
excuses, half-truths or other explanations aren't even required to
evaluate this incident. The optics are clear, a government run by those
whose political power and careers are more important than others'
lives...tyrants. Unfortunately, for most distracted Americans, they
can't handle the truth.
‘What the Frack!’: Colorado School Kids Made to Participate in Anti-Fracking Rap During Assembly
Students at a Colorado middle school
were serenaded and sang along to an anti-fracking rap from a group of
young environmental activists last week.
The “Earth Guardians” posted video
of the performance, titled “What the Frack,” from Evergreen Middle
School, about 20 miles west of Denver. In it, students rap along after
the line, “When we say ‘what the,’ you say ‘frack’!” By Thursday
afternoon, the video had been made private.
The rap demonized the process of
hydraulic fracturing — “fracking” — to extract natural gas from rock,
saying it “poisoned the water, poisoned the air, poisoned the people, do
you think that’s fair?”
Some studies have claimed that the
process of pumping water and chemicals into the earth leads to
earthquakes and other effects, but other findings have questioned its significance.
Lynn Setzer, head of communications at
Jeffco Public Schools, told TheBlaze that the presentation was part of
the district-wide “Day Without Hate” event, started after the Virginia
Tech shooting. Each school decides on their own how to mark the event,
which is supposed to be about tolerance and respect, Setzer said. The
event is not supposed to have anything to do with fracking.
Instead, the teacher responsible for
bringing in the “Earth Guardians” did so because 12-year-old “youth
leader” Xiuhtezcatl Martinez received a peace award from the Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center last year, Setzer said.
“Her intent was, here is a kid who is
clearly trying to make a difference, could possibly inspire other kids
to make a difference no matter what the cause,” she said.
Setzer said the fracking portion of the presentation “wasn’t specifically planned.”
The conservative blog Complete Colorado reported
that multiple parents complained to the school after the May 3
presentation, prompting principal Kristopher Schuh to say he would meet
with the teacher responsible to “discuss what transpired and ensure that
the opposite side of this issue is being clearly and fairly
represented.”
Setzer said the school is sending a
letter of apology to parents, along with a list of resources for both
sides of the issue for families to discuss. The school will also put in
place a procedure to vet guest speakers.
According to the group’s website, “Earth Guardians” is comprised of
“children, youth, parents, schools, and organizations working together
on behalf of leaving a better world for future generations.” Members
from the organization delayed the start of a Colorado oil and gas regulation hearing for nearly a half-hour in December, chanting their opposition to fracking.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/09/the-anti-fracking-rap-performed-for-colorado-middle-schoolers/
What if two guys named Koch bought the LA Times and saved jobs?
The left is going into irrational overdrive because the Koch brothers may buy the LA Times:
"Common Cause, Daily Kos, Free Press and Courage Campaign are among the groups protesting the sale to the conservative financiers, calling them "radical right wing ideologues." A sale of the company is considered imminent."
We hear that "half" of the staff will quit! I guess that must be the "half" of the staff still working there after all of the job cuts in recent years. The problems go back to 2008.Frankly,
I think that the reporters should be cheering that two guys with deep
pockets will buy a newspaper losing readership and sinking in competition with the new media.
After
all, how many jobs are the guys at "Daily Kos", "Common Cause", "Free
Press" and "Courage Campaign" going to offer all of those reporters
threatening to resign if the Koch duo takes over the newspaper? The
answer is none.
My advice to the anti-Koch heroes, or those who want to save the world from right wing ideology, is to pick up the phone
and chat with some of their unemployed friends of the old media.
They will discover that working for "right wing ideologues" who pay
faithfully every two weeks is actually a pretty good life after all.
After all, the best job in the world comes with a paycheck and security.
God bless the employer who puts a direct deposit in your checking account on pay day. He is a lot better than the liberal who can't make payroll anymore.
There are two problems with the liberal panic over the purchase of The LA Times.
The
first one is reality. In other words, do any of these guys at the LA
Times know that they work for an industry in decline? It's really hard
to believe that these reporters think they will resign and get jobs in
this industry.
The
second one is free speech. The Koch Brothers have every right to buy
the newspaper and run it as they see fit. After all, isn't that what
the current ownership has been doing all of these years.
Call their bluff. Let's see how many of these reporters would rather be unemployed than working for the Koch Brothers!
Call their bluff and let's see how many will really quit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/what_if_two_guys_named_koch_bought_the_la_times_and_saved_jobs.html#ixzz2StvC0WPd
Obama's Demeaning Commencement Address
As a presidential speech writer for the first Bush White House, I am always very interested in what presidents say in their formal speeches. They know, of course, that their remarks will be widely covered by the press, studied by analysts, and influential in contemporary political debates. For that reason, presidents rarely speak off-the-cuff, and their every word is carefully chosen for exactly the message the White House wants to convey to the public. Their graduation speeches, like all presidential addresses, go through many drafts and are reviewed by high-level administration officials to ensure that they accurately reflect the administration's policies and priorities.That's why President Barack Obama's speech at Ohio State University's 2013 Commencement should trouble all Americans. The speech was permeated with his distorted sense of America; he baldly stated -- as though it were the essence of this country -- that we need to "reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper."
A typical commencement address is focused on lofty ideals and challenges graduating students to live up to their potential as they enter the workforce and assume adult responsibilities. But not this one! The Ohio State speech was billed as a defense of democracy and a challenge to students about the importance of citizenship. Mr. Obama, however, chose to be, once again, very political; he delivered a speech that stands out as uniquely partisan with the "us-against- them" rhetoric that has become all too predictable. And, true to form, this speech was appallingly un-presidential (even using the phrases "fight like heck" and assuring the graduates that they will "screw up" -- this from a president of the United States in a formal address?), even among numerous other Obama presidential addresses that have been un-presidential in both tone and content.
The bottom line of the Ohio State speech was that, according to President Obama, being a good American boils down to hating those who dislike his policies. He blatantly asked the students to "reject those voices" of his opponents, whom he repeatedly caricatured with phrases describing them as people who view government as a "separate, sinister entity" who are "doing their best to gum up the works." He distilled conservative views down to caricatures: "tyranny is always lurking just around the corner" and calling conservative views a "sham" that "can't be trusted." He slyly implied that it was the middle class against the rich lobbyists and the "well-connected" who get "special treatment that you don't get." He insinuated the idea that the GOP was against those things "the vast majority of their constituents want" and are to blame for the "deteriorating climate that threatens everything we plan to leave for our kids and our grandkids."
The president noted that he had visited the Ohio State campus five times "in the past year or so" -- partly explaining why he won Ohio in the 2012 election. He couched his appeals to the idealism of the young in terms of his old "hope" and "change" campaign rhetoric -- "people who love their country" will want to "change it for the better." Once again, he played to the lower natures of the electorate -- sympathizing with the students over "all the times you've been let down" and identifying with their frustration "at the hand that you've been dealt."
The president's cavalier attitude about the Boston massacre was breathtaking; he mentioned in a long litany of times when the students saw citizenship in action, "when the bombs went off in Boston" -- as though the explosions were on a par with a nature disaster, even though he described shooting attacks as "malevolent spree(s)." He also couldn't pass up the opportunity to accuse the "institutions of our society" that have "betrayed your trust." Nor, in spite of his promise to not be partisan, could he neglect criticism of Wall Street or blaming the GOP by implying that it is their fault that "democracy isn't working as well as we know it can."
He also joked that the students should actively participate in democracy by "voting, eagerly and often." And, he got in the obligatory bow to the homosexual activists: urging the students to work to "secure our God-given rights . . . regardless . . . of who [sic] they love" and included "gay rights" among the great causes for which people have fought. And, of course, he got in his digs about gun control and climate change.
As someone with a doctorate in communication theory who spent years analyzing presidential speeches and studying political rhetoric, I've never seen a presidential speech that was more repulsively self-centered and insidiously self-serving; nor has a previous president operated in campaign mode so unrelentingly throughout his presidency, regardless of the occasion or circumstances.
Sadly, pathetically, Mr. Obama seems to really believe that anyone who opposes his agenda is un-American, and he continues to blame everyone but himself for his failures and for the multiple crises we face. His rhetoric is designed to stir up voters' emotions and mobilize them for the radical agenda in the community organizing campaign that is his presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment