Government Employees Died, Then Obama Lied

It is now evident that the Obama administration lied about what happened in Benghazi. They insisted that it was a spontaneous and unscripted riot prompted by an obscure anti-Muslim video. They stuck with that narrative despite the fact that evidence was building that it was a planned attack designed maximize embarrassment and destruction on a day that is sacred to many Americans. We now know that the attacks were planned by Al Qaeda.

You didn't have to be an intelligence officer to discover that. If regular citizens with no access to intelligence agencies know that we were attacked and the President is telling the American people something else, its lying. Prior to this revelation by American intelligence agencies, Mark Steyn made the case for how the Obama was willfully turning a blind eye to the evidence of a terrorist attack: 

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

As the old saying goes, If you repeat a lie often enough, people will take it as truth." The Obama Administration was trying to get the American people to accept their lie as the truth despite the clear evidence that this was an attack on the U.S. Consulate because it would be a clear admission that Obama's foreign policy is a complete failure: 

"The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that al-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. If they turn out to be uncoordinated actions by angry believers, then they are an expression of a frightening ignorance. A crazy individual US citizen has uploaded a movie onto the Internet which denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. The US government can not be held responsible for that. But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself."

"Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring."

Obama must be held accountable for his policy of leading from behind in world affairs and how it has been a utter failure. The fact that the Obama Administration has openly and brazenly lied to the American people cannot be tolerated either. The best way to hold him accountable is to give him the pink slip on November 6, 2012.

Mitt Romney Chastizes Ron Paul For His Stance On Iran

In the final days before the Iowa caucus, Mitt Romney went after Ron Paul and criticized him for his position on Iran:

Mitt Romney, beginning a final push in this crucial first-caucus state, this morning took a swipe at Representative Ron Paul, who has been gaining momentum among Iowa voters.

“One of the people running for president thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told voters here at Elly’s Tea and Coffee Shop, where a line stretched to the door to see him. “I don’t, I don’t trust ayatollahs ... I don’t trust those who back Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Ron Paul denies that his policies are isolationist and chooses to call his foreign policy positions "non-interventionist: 

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
- Dr. Ron Paul, 2007

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further to the left than Obama.Ron Paul's foreign policy. Regardless of what Ron Paul chooses to call his foreign policy positions, it is isolationist in theory and in application. 

In fact, a former Ron Paul aide, named Eric Dondero, has this to say about his old boss' foreign policy positions: 

First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business."

Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: 

He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

And lastly, Dondero reveals that Paul wanted to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but lacked the courage of his convictions to do so: 

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

Eric Dondero also claims that Ron Paul is Anti-Israel and Pro-Hamas and Hezbollah: 

He is . . . most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general.  He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.  He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations.  His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.  He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs. . . .

While the quote above is bad, you should click on the link above to learn more about Ron Paul's support for Palestine and how it reveals his hypocrisy for his non-interventionism/isolationism foreign policy positions. 

In contrast,  Mitt Romney will not lead from behind like President Obama nor will he withdraw from the world stage like Ron Paul. He is a man whose foreign policy positions will keep America and the world safer. He is a strong leader who has the integrity and wisdom to stand up for our nation and to support our friends and allies around the world. 

That is why Iowans and the rest of the country should vote for Mitt Romney in this 2012 Republican primary.