Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss… BREAKING: CIA Turns on Obama
It’s always easier when you know what the game is.. when it’s being played on you!
The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers. They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver. Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying. In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.
“Neither of those caught on with the mainstream pro-Obama media”.
Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly Romney stand-in John Kerry, did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.
From CBS’s “This Morning”:
Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama's] campaign needs a wake-up call. Bill Plante is here with that part of the story. Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?
Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged. They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney. They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that. So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”
The 2012 Obama campaign continues to prove to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort. In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people. In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.
What once was “Hope and Change,” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus. LINK
Poor John Kerry- He’s been waiting patiently to slip into Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s shoes the minute she resigns from her Cabinet position.. Kerry was almost replaced in the Mid-Terms when an unknown challenger managed to scare the Bejezzus out of him almost replacing him in his Senate seat…
We’ve been wondering ‘WHY’ Exit Polling will no longer be used this Election.
“Why the Networks Cut Exit Polls”
The networks and the Associated Press have an insidious plan to help President Obama on Election Day that is being swept under the rug: they are cutting nineteen states from the list of exit polls they will report. For twenty years, all 50 states have been reported, but somehow this year the networks and AP are ignoring 19 of them. Now just how and why were those 19 states selected?
The ostensible reason given is the rising cost of the surveys. Dan Merkle, director of elections for ABC News, and a member of the consortium that runs the polls, said the goal “is to still deliver a quality product in the most important states.”
“So just which states are being ignored? Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.”
The Washington Post tried to gloss over the scheme, noting “how carefully the exit poll planners allocated resources. All 19 of the states with no exit polls are classified as either “solid Obama” or “solid Romney.”
Really? Of the nineteen states (including Washington, D.C.) exactly 4 are for Obama, with a total of 14 electoral votes. The fifteen Romney states add up to 135.
It is utter hogwash that the exit polls were cut from these states because they were in the bag for one of the candidates. If Texas is cut, how about New York and California?
The real reason the consortium has cut these states is that they know that if they report fifteen states coming in for Romney early, independent voters in other states will take notice and be swayed his way.
There is no way that the networks and AP can rationalize their decision without damning themselves with their obvious partisanship. In 2008, the major media outlets were in the tank and lined up for Obama, but it was done under the radar. Now it’s all-encompassing. They are goose-stepping in public.
BREAKING: CIA Turns On Obama – Indicating Significant Cover-Up
Less than a month ago a United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. For days the Obama administration denied the attacks were terrorist related. Now intelligence figures from within the American government are letting it be known how the Obama White House has repeatedly ignored and then covered up information and events that put the safety and security of the United States in danger.
Revolt of the Spooks
Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.
Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
…Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”
Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.
Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.
Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.
…The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.
Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.
“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.
Do NOT Miss Reading this Article: REVOLT OF THE SPOOKS!