The "Do As I Say, Not As I (And My People) Do" President (continued)

1. How dare he fault Romney for not giving details of the itemized deductions considered for elimination or means-testing, when Obama and his people rammed through Obamacare by literally saying, "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It, away from the fog of the controversy..."

(Not to mention the fact "You do not negotiate with Congress in a CAMPAIGN." Giving out such details is something no President is going to do IN A CAMPAIGN--Obama included--prior to actually negotiating with Congress on all this, precisely because it would give away the bargaining chips with Congress once Romney is in office.)

In this video, John Sununu gets the same challenge (because Andrea Mitchell speaks the Obama campaign talking points to a T) and explains why NO candidate gives away the farm before sitting down with Congress to iron out the details.

IT'S A RED HERRING ("something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand") TO TRICK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO THINKING THAT ALL DETAILS NEED TO BE SPELLED OUT IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR THE MAN. THEY CANNOT and SHOULD NOT, and even OBAMA DIDN'T DO IT FOUR YEARS AGO. Remember? "Hope and Change"? How much more unspecified can you get than that?

2. How dare he say that "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people...That this was an act of terror..." HE DID NO SUCH THING. And I GOT the transcript (below). But he did plant the idea in your heads about the Youtube video being to blame, that very day.

Obama was the first to politicize this, hands down, and here's proof. This is what he actually said in the Rose Garden the day after, also the day after the anniversary of 9/11 (and before he jetted off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser instead of staying home and dealing with the atrocity). NOTE HIS SECOND SENTENCE, SECOND PARAGRAPH WHICH HAD ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "ATTACK", REFERENCING, WITHOUT NAMING, THAT YOUTUBE VIDEO AND PROVING IT WAS ALREADY IN HIS PLANNED "TALKING POINTS."

President Obama, Sept. 12, 2012: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

He did NOT say

"THIS

act of terror". He did. not. call. Benghazi. an. act. of. terror. He could have and he should have, but he didn't. He vaguely referenced all acts of terror, 9/11 being the focal point of all, but he did not say THIS act of terror. It's a weaselly way out.

Even The Washington Post knows he didn't. They put together a Fact-Checker timeline on all this:

" Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift."

... Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

To actually have called Benghazi a terrorist act would have been to admit his self-perceived "perfect" foreign-affairs record, the one they were "spiking the football" over at the DNC, wasn't perfect after all.

He proved by his laziness and his lack of interest and preparation in the first debate, Obama is too arrogant to admit he's ever less than perfect. He thinks (or thought) he "had it in the bag already."

Do you really want a President that arrogant, that pompous, that full of himself, that he'd blame the deaths of 4 Americans on a youtube video and its maker, repeatedly, for weeks, and then lie on national television that he actually first called Benghazi "this act of terror" when he clearly didn't?

3. "Clinton said yesterday what Obama and Biden have failed to say: The buck stops here."

Hooray for Clinton; perhaps she gets some payback from Obama (future support on stump speeches when she runs in 2016, most likely) in exchange for falling on the sword Obama should have fallen on.

Even Dan Rather said yesterday, "[I]n the end, the president is responsible."

But first, Obama tried to escape the responsibility, through his surrogate Biden saying it was up to the State Department, then only after his feet are held to the fire, he claimed last night that "I'm responsible," after Clinton took responsibility. A PRESIDENT CAN'T STAND UP IN THE ROSE GARDEN ONE DAY AND SAY "I've directed my administration to increase our security..." AND THEN FOR THE NEXT FOUR-PLUS WEEKS SAY, through "his administration", that "we" didn't know there were requests for increased security.

That's not being responsible. It's taking credit for the good stuff and passing the buck for the bad stuff. Little kids, and cowards, do that.

Besides, if YOU were President, wouldn't YOU have been clued-in enough to proactively beef up security, even temporarily, on the anniversary of 9/11, without being asked to do it?