The "Red Line" That Wasn't?
Anyone who still doubts that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar, and a pathological one at that, needs to have their head examined as much as Obama does. This is the age of technology, video and instant messaging and recording. I can't imagine anyone, but a pathological liar, thinking that an outright lie won't be immediately caught and identified.
But then again Obama thinks of himself as the smartest man in any room and everyone else is just supposed to bow down and shovel his manure for him. He has his "fainters" but more and more people are seeking therapy and overcoming their addiction to both bull manure and his crap. Others will need electroshock therapy since they have sucked down so much koolaid.
Yes, Obama is good at passing the buck even though he also says "the buck stops with him." Yes, he did also uttered that complete falsehood. Here's the video that caught his "red line" statement that was released shortly after his lips stopped moving in 2012.
Something He Now Says He Didn't Say
So today in Stockholm he tells the world that he never drew that red line? Who did? The real problem is that he that he kept on moving the red line and equivocating about where it was, not who drew it. Obama always needs a scape goat whenever he has ended up backing himself into another corner. He drew that line during his last campaign season which still hasn't ended. That is the only thing he knows well -how to campaign and string a string of lies together by saying the same thing over and over again. Or was that Herman Goebbels?
First he set a red line then he never set a red line but everyone else did. Good grief his lips get slippery with spilling falsehood after falsehood. Now all the sudden the world said it and he didn't. But he said it so he now speaks for the world? Does the world know that? It doesn't seem that way because everyone is backing away from his hypocrisy and only the French seems compliant because they want to serve croissants.
So we're going to war as a nation to make good on some idiotic statement that an unschooled President made back when he was campaigning and trying to sound tough? That seems like a really feeble-minded thing for us to do. But Washington DC is packed to the gills with feeble minds these days. The British on the other hand had sense enough to say "no" when asked for a vote to join Obama's latest folly.
Oh! Now You Might Want The Proof Of His Equivocation And Blame Fixing?
I've never heard a more convoluted explanation from anyone why they said what they supposedly didn't say. No where in the US Constitution does it give the President of the United States the authority to start drawing red lines anywhere. He needs to draw them in his mind and keep them there while at the same time keeping his "I love to talk and hear my own voice" mouth tightly shut. If he had done that we might not be in this mess he himself created when he decided to be the big shot he isn't.
You see Obama is spineless in actuality. He's like an actor on the world stage playing a part but the world isn't a theater. It is real life. Need more affirmation that he said what he said?
Dateline April 2013 statement concerning what the President said back in August of 2012.
"We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It's precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria. ...it is absolutely the case that the President's red line is the use of chemical weapons..."
Whoops! It went further:
"And the people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President means what he says when he set that red line. And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker. He's the one who directed that we provide this information to the public. And he's the one who directed that we do everything we can to further investigate this information so that we can establish in credible, corroborated, factual basis what exactly took place."
If just once Obama manned up and admitted he screwed the pooch I think I'd faint. But he doesn't want to disappoint his "fainters" so I don't expect him to. it is also ironic that even Chrissy "Tingles" Matthews appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning and threw Obama under the bus again. He has Obama putting Democrats in a "wicked position" pulling Obama's cajones out of the fire (does he have any?) by supporting a military action that they really are in opposition to. Chrissy said, "I think the Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don’t want to vote for this. They’re going to have to vote for it to save the president’s hide. That’s a bad position to put your party in."
Wow! This next part is also spot on, even for Chris Matthews. He points out hypocrisy in action among those he aspires to worship. Those very same Democrats who so opposed George Bush and Iraq are now currying favor with Obama - in the name of a political party. A disgusting display of partisanship if there ever was one. So on he went:
"When you hear Barbara Boxer, when you hear Jim Moran, you have to wonder what they would have said had it been a Republican president. Clearly people are changing sides. Just like the Democrats who supported Lyndon Johnson after the Vietnam war, after it was over they turned on Nixon. The same exact people. So partisanship shows its ugly head here."
You Can Watch The Segment Here. It Hasn't Made It To You Tube Yet.
- Matthews: Dems Must Support War to 'Save President's Hide'
Chris Matthews appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday morning to analyze the political ramifications of the congressional debate to support President Obama's call for a military strike against Syria. Matthews said the President had put the Democ
Does This Pass The Smell Test?
it's tough to sort this out. He didn't say what we can easily see he said. The world said it and he was only being the Nobel Peace Prize winner who was speaking for the world about getting us involved in a war the rest of the world doesn't really want part and parcel of.
Am I understanding all this correctly? I'm just asking...
Share it with your followers here and on Face Book, Tweet It, Pin It and do anything else you can to let people read the truth.
The Frog Prince