context (n): The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
Libya is a pain just won’t go away. Since 9/11 of this year we’ve dealt with people questioning what Beaurat Obama said, what he meant, what he knew and when he knew it concerning the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. When Obama appeared in the second Presidential Debate, Candy Crowley (mediator of the event) lent credibility to Obama’s calling the incident an act of terror. It’s being called “interference” on the part of the mediator. Her bosses at CNN have manned the ramparts to assure their girl doesn’t get too badly ground up in the melee.
Obama and his people started doing damage control concerning the incident when really all they needed to do was tell the truth: it was a terrorist initiated attack and our ambassador was the victim of a homicide. Simple, inelegant and in finality, it was more sad than needed to be.
All a politician needs do is be honest, but that the one virtue escapes the vast majority of them. They want power and sacrifice their potential acreage in heaven for the chance to gain notoriety and the square footage bounding the petty power positions they pursue. They waste themselves, our trust and faith in them and (at the level Obama works at) the security of our nation.
So many times the accused liar screams after being caught; “you’re taking my statements out of context”! We’re not out of context most of the time. With the advent of videotape and the instant replay of recorded events we can return to the scene of the “crime” and examine the exact verbiage used.
Obama made a comment stating America would never bow to terrorists. He continued saying the massacre started as a protest provoked by an anti-Islamic video trailer.
That’s not the same as saying terrorists attacked the sovereign state of America. It doesn’t make clear the sovereign state of America was pushed to a point of war with Islamist criminals benignly accepted by an Islamist government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. It doesn’t make a stand against the horror of Islamist violence perpetrated against anybody not accepting their perverted stance on anything they unilaterally accept as being wrong by Qur’anic standards.
To keep this all in context I’ll speak plainly and to the point. Obama is a man lived and trained in Indonesia during his most formative years. He is a student of Islam and the Qur’an. He is an apologist and a defender of Islamist elements. He’s bowed to Sultans and proclaimed his Islamic faith when addressing the world audience so they’d like him.
Obama specifically (and with intent) insulted, slighted and offended Israel. His ignoring Benjamin Netanyahu and his refusals to meet with United Nations emissaries in favor of campaign events and talk-show appearances superseding the diplomacy necessary to prevent our further diminishment in the eyes of the world are events living now in legend.
No president before him has ever done so much damage to the international esteem and reputation of the United States.
Every politician has stated goals, and with this new age of instant recordation we can return to any given, public moment and pore over the evidence left behind by the accused. We can take that evidence, weigh it and compare its relative strength against the statements he issues at a later time. He can be the builder of the snare holds him in place for the derision he alone may have auditioned for with his duplicity. This is as it should be.
Debates are interesting because they offer one thing without delivering the realities needing inspection.
I’d suggest debates be more readily conducted with the candidates having availability and access to videotape to instantly controvert the lies issued by the opposition. Romney could do it. Obama could do it.
The clip could be shown, then responded to as the candidates squirm under the pinpoint light of real disclosure in public. It would be enlightening and entertaining to watch the ants scramble for cover.
That would really keep it all in context.
Thanks for listening.