With all due respect to the office and to the person occupying that office I must say that yes in fact President Obama essentially lied throughout much of the debate and did so unchallenged by Mitt Romney or the moderator. There were moments when my mouth dropped open and I just could not comprehend the level at which Mr. Obama was willing to climb in terms of his dishonesty. The reason it came off as a victory for him is because Mitt Romney failed to call him out in a more consistent and aggressive fashion.
The president lied in every initial answer and response he gave last night. Let me repeat that: Every answer and response given by President Obama last night was false. And, you know it's very difficult to pin down someone who lies almost like second nature. Before I became born again I used to lie a lot. I would create lies before dealing with situations in order to save my own skin. When someone has basically mastered the art of lying, to the point where they believe their own lies to be truth even if everyone around them knows otherwise, its very difficult to try and sift through the dishonest talking points of a professional and political liar. Our president basically built his political career on lies crafted to get him to this point in history by way of his allies and the figures behind the scenes who put him in positions of political advancement throughout.
One of the most frequent and reliable clues that Mr. Obama gives away in terms of whether or not he's being dishonest is when he starts off his response or an initial statement as such: "My administration has done (fill in the blank), more than any administration in American history" Or when he says: "(Fill in the blank) is stronger now than anytime in American history". When he gives that response what he's doing is inflating reality in order to deflect it.
He'll take his record and he's drop certain truths from it and replaces them with thin air proclamations. On the issue of energy, during the last debate with Candy Crowley he lied about oil production under his administration. He tried to merge the production of oil on federal land and on private land to make it seem like production overall has been higher during the last four years than at any other time in history, when in fact it hasn't. The highest increase in oil production has come on private land in places like North Dakota. How can one veto the construction of the largest pipeline between Canada and the United States, and with a serious tone and arrogance claim to be one of the most oil production friendly presidents in American history?
On the issue of terrorism the president said numerous times that Al Qaeda is on the decline because of drone strikes and his administration being on the offensive. What he didn't mentioned, and what Mitt Romney failed to mention in rebuttal, is that not only has homegrown terrorism been on the rise throughout the last four years but Al Qaeda has reestablished itself in Northern Africa. Libya has provided the perfect home-base because the nation's in transition, and without a clear path in terms of a stable government and stable leadership. He lied about the relationship between Israel and the United States. He claimed the relationship is stronger now than it's ever been throughout American history, watch for those grand proclamations, it usually means he's not telling the truth. From the mouth of Israel's own Prime Minister are constant complaints and objections to the way President Obama has treated this so called "strongest alliance ever in the history of evernessness"
On Military spending, again Mitt Romney missed a solid opportunity for rebuttal. The president lies through generalization: When it comes to Military spending, while the general issue of spending cuts and increases are important points in the entire argument, one mustn't forget the contrasts between "general" cuts and "specific" cuts. President Obama tries and tried last night to mix the definition of general cuts and specific cuts when it comes to defense spending. Part of this was Mitt Romney's fault for being too general and not specific enough about his plan to increase Military spending.
The issue isn't spending, nor is the issue a sweeping cut to the budget overall. The purpose of defense spending is or at least should be one of targeted development and targeted cuts to unnecessary programs and obsolete weapons and weapon systems. President Obama lied when he talked about reshaping the Military to meet the needs of future engagement around the world. He's simply not giving you the whole story. Under this administration we've seen an increase of overall defense spending cuts and cancellations of programs and weapons directly affect the Navy and the Air Force.
I believe the president's "more flexibility" remark he made in a conversation with former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev was about his intentions to have the free range to cut back the United States' Military by cutting the overall budget by more than what's necessary. I'm always struck by this constant condemnation of America's defense spending and our 650 billion dollar budget. We spend more on health care costs and entitlements than we do on defense spending and yet somehow the Military is a constant and convenient target of Democrat lawmakers in Washington. Does that sound odd to you? They don't want to reform entitlements but they salivate over the prospects of cutting the overall defense budget by more than half.
And in terms of the snark moment of the night, as in President Obama's "Horses and Bayonets' comment. The President talked about aircraft carriers and submarines being among the chief reasons why we have the lowest number of ships in our Navy since 1917. Mr. Obama talked about aircraft carriers and things landing on them as he put it. Well, he might want to reconsider his arrogance because it's quite difficult to use our aircraft carriers effectively when we're cutting the number of air crafts carried by....aircraft....carriers; you know those "things" that land on them. Kind of hard to have things land on the carrier when those things are being cut.
President Obama didn't cut Mitt Romney down to size nor did he make him look irrational or naive in the eyes of the American people. I think where Romney failed is his inability or unwillingness to educate the president on why much of what Mr. Obama assumes he knows is either completely false or drastically overstated. And in fact much of the president's foreign policy has been a mixture of theatrical exaggerations and George W. Bush like half truths and flat out lies. His record can be summed in up not words but images, several images playing out as if it were a slideshow on loop: Just look at the Middle East and decide for yourself if the "Obama Doctrine" has worked, or if it's even a doctrine at all.
I believe the world under President Obama is as dangerous and hostile today as it was during the rise and advancement of Nazi Germany leading up to World War II. I know that's a bold statement but if you look at the players on the world stage: Russia, Iran, China, and how they're starting to position themselves, and how Iran uses proxy allies like Hezbollah and Hamas to carry out attacks against Israel, these aren't bumps in the roads, to borrow a phrase from President Obama. These are signs up ahead on the highway leading to a less peaceful world. If Mitt Romney is blessed with the duty of commander in chief there's no doubt the largest and most difficult mess for him to clean up will be one made abroad, not domestically.