Protesting too much

President's patronizing demeanor obscures truth on Benghazi

Chivalry lives!

 

But so does chicanery.

President Obama sends U.N. Secretary Susan Rice out to perpetrate a hoax on America – claiming that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the result of a protest over an Internet video – and then tries to ride to her rescue when someone dares question her bogus story.

Asked at a rare White House press conference Wednesday about Rice’s role in the Benghazi cover story, Obama angrily defended her reputation and scowled that if Republicans have a problem with the Libya story, they should “go after me.”

No doubt they would appreciate the opportunity, Mr. President. Your administration has bungled Benghazi from the get-go, and it’s time the buck stopped on your desk.

“Mr. President,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., “don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.”

But in the spirit of the president’s manufactured Sir Galahad act, we would argue: Methinks thou doth protest too much.

First, let’s address the gender patronizing going on.

If the president wants females in his administration to take leadership and spokesperson roles – including his wife – then let them take the heat as well. They’re not tender, helpless little girls who need his
gallant protection. It’s more than a little chauvinistic to pretend otherwise.

Second, the overall patronization:

This president appears to have never been seriously questioned about anything in his life. Liberals like to make an issue of the color of his skin; the real problem is its thickness, or lack thereof.

Four people were killed at our embassy in Benghazi on Sept. 11. The official story for days from this administration was that the attack was the result of a protest gone bad. They later had to admit there was never any protest, and that it was a clear, premeditated, commando-style raid on our consulate. And they knew that pretty early, if not immediately.

That means someone in this administration had to concoct, from scratch, the video protest sham story.

It’s time we found out who. And it’s time this president learned how to answer tough questions without getting all bent out of shape. The campaign is over, Mr. President. Time to do your job. And time to level with the American people.

Of course, many of us would argue that the time has long since passed. But the president managed to kick this can past Election Day. So be it. Now it’s time for a Day of Reckoning.

We don’t care who gets asked the many questions that need answering, whether it be a woman or a man. But if this president doesn’t want his surrogates questioned, that’s tough; they’re going to be. If he wants to prevent it, wants to be truly chivalrous, he can always proffer some answers himself. It’s called accountability.

Another thing: This president keeps blaming the intelligence community for the video protest hoax. Well, if he’s being truthful, then some heads need to roll in that department – because someone there imagined a citizen protest out of thin air.

Some are calling for a Watergate-, Iran-Contra-style select committee investigation in Congress. And it looks like that’s the only way we’ll get any answers about why four Americans died after repeated requests for security – and after seven hours of administration inaction during the murderous raid.

Just a word of caution to the committee: Be careful not to ask any tough questions of the Obama women!

 

More