President Obama is like fine wine, he gets better with age. The longer he is in office and on the campaign trail, using Air Force One (are we taxpayers getting reimbursed from his campaign?), the more the real unvarnished Obama comes to the forefront.
Yesterday, we learned through released White House emails, that key figures within the Administration, and most likely the President knew, that terrorists were responsible for the attack at our US Consulate at Benghazi.
The e-mails obtained by CNN provide additional insight into the Benghazi attack.
The first one, sent at 4:05 p.m. ET, or 10:05 p.m. in Libya, described a diplomatic mission under attack.
"Approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well," the e-mail said. Stevens and four other mission staff were in the compound safe haven, it added.
Less than an hour later, at 4:54 p.m. ET, another e-mail reported "firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared." It said a search was underway for consulate personnel.
The final e-mail, at 6:07 p.m., noted the claim of responsibility for the attack. The subject line said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
"Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the e-mail said.
Next, we have Secretary Clinton claiming that a posting on Facebook is not evidence. Really, but posting a video on YouTube is????
"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."
This followed by the comments made by the President on the Benghazi attack on September 12 during his 60 minutes interview with Steve Kroft, apparently left on the cutting room floor:
Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Bottom line, evidence coming fast and furious (pardon the pun) that Obama and his campaign instigated a cover-up of Benghazi because of the damage that could be done to his re-election chances if "bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda's on the run" claim turned out to be little more than a myth by our "heal the planet" leader.
Fast forward to Monday night's debate, and the now infamous zinger the President launched at Mitt Romney, when Romney said the US Navy had the fewest number of ships since 1917:
“Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed,” Obama said.
As we well know, part of the problem with that line, is that bayonets are still used, as the Marines issue them as standard equipment. Additionally, one soldier as part of our NATO allies in the conflict, was awarded the Military Cross for his heroism with the bayonet. More disturbing about the President's comment, though, is his ignorance about the national security risk that the US faces with such a small navy. While our ships and submarines may be more technologically advanced, there is numerical evidence and opinion that we can no longer fight a war on two fronts, if it came to that.
And so we come to the Romney "is a bullsh**r" phrase used by our oh so eloquent President. Do you think that David Letterman would agree, because when you start losing David....?