Follow by Email

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Gail Collins, "The Art of Senate Stoppage": How About the Art of Presidential Mendacity?

"The Art of Senate Stoppage"? How about the art of presidential mendacity?

It used to be that Americans thought that Obama was honest, but this is no longer the case. As reported by CNN (

"President Barack Obama's approval rating among American voters has dropped to its lowest number in Quinnipiac University polling since he became President, according to a survey released on Tuesday that also raised new doubts about trust.

. . . .

According to the poll, a majority of voters, 52%, say the President is not honest and trustworthy, compared to 44% who say the opposite. It's the first time in Quinnipiac history that the president's trustworthy numbers are underwater."

The president is viewed by Americans as a liar? How can that be? Well, most recently his verisimilitude could not have been helped by repeated declarations that Americans would be able to keep their health care plans, notwithstanding the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act ("period").

And then there was also the ridiculous attempt by Secretary of State John Kerry to explain away his willingness to sign an agreement with Iran in Geneva, easing sanctions in exchange basically for . . . nothing. We are now learning that this fibbing did not go over well even with Senate Democrats Reid and Schumer (see:

And then there was that "small" matter of Benghazi, where four Americans were left to die, while Obama and Hillary slept peacefully in their beds. The dissemination of the falsehood by the Obama administration that the attack was caused by a movie mocking Mohammad? Yes, I know, "What does it matter?"

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Art of Senate Stoppage" (, Gail Collins, founder of the Bonbon School of Journalism (best practiced from a cushy couch), tells us that approval of Obama appointees is being blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is threatening to hold up all federal government nominations until survivors of the Benghazi attack are allowed by Obama to appear before Congress. Cute as a button, Collins begins by observing:

"After a while, this sort of thing can weigh down a presidency. For instance, as you’ve listened with mounting frustration to the rollout of, did you ever wonder why President Obama is keeping Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, on the job? Try to imagine what would happen if she left. How much chance do you think the president would have of ever getting a replacement? I am thinking slightly worse than the odds on the White House being attacked by giant killer zucchini."

In fact, no one in the Obama administration is ever held accountable for their failures. Example: After Susan Rice made the rounds explaining that the Benghazi attack was caused by the movie, she was subsequently given the position of United States National Security Advisor for taking the heat.

But more to the point, Collins is basically telling us to "get over" Benghazi:

"While Congressional committees have questioned tons of people about Benghazi, he says he needs to hear from five survivors of the attack. The State Department doesn’t want to provide them because they might wind up being witnesses in criminal trials if the perpetrators are ever caught.

The five were already questioned by an independent review commissioned by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That panel found that officials like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice were wrong when they theorized the attack might have grown out of a protest against a crude movie making fun of Muhammad. The review also found that security at the compound was inadequate. The assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security resigned."

Sorry, Gail, but I don't buy it. I served many years in a combat unit, and there have been those who have claimed that my inability to forgive and forget stems from PTSD, but I would still like to know why Obama and Hillary made no credible attempt to save the four American victims.

Collins concludes:

"The one thing that doesn’t seem to be on Graham’s list of questions that needs answering is whether we should have used military force to topple Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in the first place. Even if it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe we ought to reflect. After all, Libya’s not looking like the happy ending we might have hoped for."

Got it: If we had never helped topple Qaddafi by "leading from behind," the Benghazi fiasco would never have happened, i.e. Obama should have trusted his better instincts. But then there was also Qaddafi's 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, killing 270 innocent people, and his ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the globe (see:

Yes, I know, let bygones be bygones. I need to master my PTSD, and Graham needs to move on, so as to smooth Hillary's election in 2016. Ultimately, however, Hillary will discover that there are not a few road apples waiting in her path.

1 comment:

  1. I was thinking ....
    If we are in some crisis/antagonistic relationship with Iran and Obama follows the orders of Iranian leaders, shouldn't he be regarded as enemy combatant and ... shouldn't we all be concerned with his mental condition?