By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner
Yesterday, when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was questioned by the media about whether the ‘official [Obama White House] definition’ of the deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi had changed, from the ‘spontaneous public protest gone awry,’ in respect to the flood of information indicating what most people already believed–that it was a [pre-planned] ‘terrorist attack’–Carey ‘matter-of-factly’ replied…
It is, I think, self evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
Not only did Carey’s answer take everyone by surprise, but the tone of voice and facial expression used by him were clearly condescending toward the reporter, as if to imply that the reporter’s question was superfluous because ‘everyone knows that,’ as though ‘terrorist attack’ had been the White House position all along.
But, Carney’s [Obama-approved] use of the term ‘self-evident’ creates a larger problem, the public’s perception of the success and effectiveness of Obama’s [mainstream media] heralded foreign policy prowess and signature ‘Leading from Behind‘ doctrine.
For clarity, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of ‘self-evident‘ is “evident without proof or reason.”
As such, President Obama allowing the use of the term ‘self-evident’ in this way, defies the basis of the message which he sent Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., around to all five major Sunday news shows–to carve into stone that the White House had ‘no proof or reason‘ to believe it was a terrorist attack, and thus would not ‘jump to that conclusion.’
However, just three days later on Wednesday, President Obama’s preposterous delusion was de-cloaked during a Senate hearing on the subject, when Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) directly asked National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen, if the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and he unequivocally answered “Yes,” according to a FOXNews article today.
However, even though ‘proof and reason’ were obtained, Barack Obama continued to peddle his fantasy of characterizing the uprisings all across the Middle East and Southeast Asia as ‘spontaneous reactions to an anti-Islamic video,’ while being interviewed by Jorge Ramos in front of a live audience on the Hispanic Univision cable TV network.
However, this intended obfuscation, along with his Ramos pressing him to admit his failure to pass the Immigration Reform that he promised Hispanic voters in 2008, will cost him votes now.
Why would President Barack Obama want to keep everyone confused?
Because clarity would make it ‘self-evident’ that Barack Obama’s foreign policies ‘did that’ in Libya, harkening back more to the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter–because they are now almost identical in nature and fact.
First, Barack Obama’s stewardship has brought the U.S. economy and too many Americans to their knees, with no end in sight.
Then, admitting that the attack on our Benghazi embassy was the work of ‘terrorists,’ would harness Obama to the first successful terrorist attack on ‘U.S. soil’ since “9/11, and worse yet, it occurred on the anniversary of “9/11.” In stark contrast, no terrorist attacks were suffered on the ‘watch’ of President George W. Bush.
Finally and equally important, is the fact that Christopher Stevens is the first American Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979, which also happened in the Middle East under President Jimmy Carter.
Therefore, as a result of President Barack Obama’s continued unwillingness to properly regard the meaning and use of the word ‘terror’ during his presidency, instead of ‘borrowing‘ the Clinton economy, he owns the identical circumstances that led to the 1980 election downfall of another, one-term Democrat president–Jimmy Carter–now formerly the worst U.S. president in history.