Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
Ten questions I'd like to hear asked of Obama during Monday night's debate
Let's get to the bottom of what is shaping up as Benghazi-gate. As bad as Watergate was, it was a minor burglary attempt and nobody was killed. As with all "-gate" affairs, it is the cover-up that is the most damning. However, in this case the death of a US Ambassador in the actual event is unprecedented and contributes to the magnitude of this story. President Obama needs to "man up" and stop his obfuscating. It's time for some direct answers to direct questions and it's long past time for the US news media to stop aiding and abetting Obama's cover-up.
Ten questions that need answers, but will never be asked of Obama during the last of the presidential debates:
When was the US security detail removed from Benghazi prior to the 9/11/12 attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans?
On whose orders and why was the US security detail removed and why were there no simultaneous replacements?
Given that the inflammatory YouTube video was on the internet since some time in July, why hadn't you ordered increased security for all US foreign service facilities throughout North Africa and the Middle East as the anniversary of 9/11 approached if you felt the video was sufficiently offensive to trigger violent protests?
Note: The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) is the daily meeting at which the President is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country.
According to a report in The Washington Post, during your first 1,225 days in office, you attended your PDB just 536 times -- or less than 44% of the briefings. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, your attendance became even less frequent -- falling to just over 38%. By contrast, your predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting. What was your attendance record for the first ten days of September 2012, and why do you believe it is not necessary for you to attend EVERY PDB? [information from "Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence briefings?" by Marc A. Thiessen in The Washington Post.]
Wouldn't you have been better-informed and Ambassador Stevens, three other Americans in Benghazi, and the American people better-served had you attended ALL of your PDBs, especially as the anniversary of 9/11/01 approached?
Senior officials of the State Department in Washington monitored, in real time, the attack that took three American lives in Benghazi, Libya. Where were you and what where you doing at the time of the attack, and why weren't you notified of the attack immediately?
If, as you implied in the second presidential debate, you knew in the White House Rose Garden one day after the attack that the violence was committed by terrorists, why did you and your administration persist in claiming it was a spontaneous protest over a video as long as two weeks after the attack?
In particular, five days after the attack when it was well known in the State Department and our Intelligence community that the attack was well-planned by heavily-armed terrorists to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11/01, why did you send your UN Ambassador to visit each of the five Sunday news programs on September 16, claiming there was no evidence the attack was anything other than a spontaneous protest of a YouTube video that was online since July and which the US had no part in producing? Why did you, personally, during a September 18 appearance on The David Letterman claim the attack started over a video? Finally on this point, why did you refer to the YouTube video SIX times during your speech on September 25, 2012 to the UN General Assembly, a full two weeks after the attack, while not once revealing the Benghazi attack to be an act of terrorism commemorating 9/11/01?
For months you campaigned taking credit for al-Qaeda being "on the run" and finished. Don't you think your campaign rhetoric might have, at least in part, motivated al-Qaeda to plan the 9/11/12 attack?
Do you believe you were justified in purposefully misleading the American people about the nature of the deadly attack in Benghazi? If so, why?
I must say, I've come to believe one of President Obama's campaign claims. When he suggests the country is moving in the right direction, I'm inclined to agree. All the presidential preference polls show a broad-based and substantial move toward Mitt Romney.
If the President cannot be honest with the American people and answer the questions posed above - both clearly and completely - then he should be his retirement notice on November 6.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.