Obama in 2012 and Holder 2011: Use of the term "Offensive" indicates Lying

As I watched Barack Obama tell the White House Press Corps. (pronounced "corpse") that he found it "offensive" for anyone to suggest that his White House was responsible for leaking national security secrets to the New York Times, I remembered Attorney General Eric Holder using the same term when pressed by Rep. Darrell Issa last year at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. In both instances, both men (Obama and Holder) appeared to be lying their faces off.

There are countless lies to chronicle from both Barack Obama and Eric Holder but let's focus on one each. First, Obama is a liar when it comes to his denial that he was a member of the Socialist "New Party." Eric Holder is a liar when it comes to his May 3, 2011 testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee at which he said he'd learned about Fast and Furious for the first time "a few weeks" earlier. He later had to admit that he learned about the operation in February, more than a couple of months earlier.

Given that Obama lied about his membership in the "New Party" as well as the way he did it, with a vehement denial and smear of the person who levied the charge, the prospect that Obama is lying about anything, especially when he does so vehemently, should be on the table. After all, he lied about not being a socialist party member simply because it was politically expedient in an election year.

Now, to the videos. The first one is from today's press conference. Watch it all if you have time but fast forward to the 2:30 mark if you don't. This is where Obama suffers a bout of righteous indignation and tells the world that...

"...the notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive; it's wrong and people need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how people around me here approach this office..."

Be sure to continue on to the Holder video after viewing this one...



Now, at this House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011 Rep. Darrell Issa grilled Holder about operation Fast and Furious. During this exchange, Issa made it clear to Holder that Congress wasn't interested in looking at the straw purchasers who placed guns in the hands of drug cartels; he was looking at the leadership in Holder's Justice Department. Here is part of Holder's response (6:40 mark):

"...I'm going to take great exception to what you just said. The notion that somehow or other this Justice Department is responsible for those deaths that you mentioned, that assertion is offensive."

In light of what we now know, Holder is no longer making such an argument. Issa has copies of wiretap applications in his possession that prove Holder's being offended is unwarranted, righteous indignation (see Obama above).



To wrap this all up, consider that the New York Times article from last week specifically cited more than 30 White House sources when writing about much of the sensitive national security information in question.

Via Hot Air:

The Times claimed to have spoken to three dozen current or former advisors about Obama’s role in the process. Hard for me to believe that all of them were eager to talk, but between quiet encouragement from the White House and/or the “here’s what I already know” rap from the reporter, they probably ended up feeling obliged.

Hot Air goes on to cite a POLITICO story that quotes NYT's managing editor as saying the White House had nothing to do with leaking the information. Ok, this necessarily means that either the authors of the May 29th New York Times article lied or the paper's Managing Editor is lying.

Don't you find it offensive that the New York Times, Eric Holder and Barack Obama are all liars?

Video: Eric Holder's 'Baghdad Bob' Moment on 'Fast and Furious'

The first half of the five minute exchange between Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Eric Holder at yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing is not in this clip because it involved a futile attempt by Chaffetz to get Holder to agree to meet privately with him to discuss Fast and Furious. However, the second half of the exchange (seen below) is by far the best half because Holder actually denied that the phrase 'Fast and Furious' appeared in an email Chaffetz was reading aloud, despite the phrase 'Fast and Furious' being in the email.

Holder's refusal to admit this indisputable fact actually seemed to induce a look of apoplexy on Chaffetz's face. It was almost as if Holder's claim was so outrageous that Chaffetz began questioning what he already knew to be true... until he re-read the email again and confirmed it. Also, take note of how confident Holder and his team are when Chaffetz brings up the email. It's as if they scoffed at something they could easily bat away by saying the email Chaffetz was reading was about Operation Wide Receiver.

Uh, if it was about Wide Receiver, why are the letters arranged in such a way that they spell 'Fast and Furious'?

This is one of those hidden gems that could have as much staying power as Holder saying last year that he had only learned about Fast and Furious "a few weeks" earlier when, in reality he'd learned about it more than two months earlier.

Via Human Events:



And, of course, Baghdad Bob:

Video: Allen West's comment about Commies in Congress still has legs

In an interview with Mitt Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom, Wolf Blitzer brought up statements made by Allen West in April about 78-81 members of the Democratic Party being Communists. Is it a coincidence that Blitzer did this on the same day that Stanley Kurtz exposed Barack Obama as a liar in 2008 regarding his membership in the Socialist New Party?

It's understandable why Ferhnstrom didn't take the bait; the strategy of the Romney campaign has been to stay on message, which is this election is about the economy and nothing else. It's also understandable because that strategy seems to be working.

Nonetheless, it is a bit of a disappointment to see Romney's mouthpiece say that the campaign doesn't agree with West. Why? Because West is correct. This was actually an opportunity for Ferhnstrom to possibly get Blitzer to stop talking about the subject by bringing up the new revelation from Kurtz, that Obama was a member of a socialist political party and lied about it. Not bringing that up was very John McCainish on the part of Ferhnstrom.

CLICK HERE to see the exchange at Huffington Post.

Here is the statement made by West two months ago that has gotten under the skin of the libs. If it isn't true, why hasn't it died a quick death? As for Ferhnstrom, it's too bad that the truth has become so politically untenable to profess.



h/t WZ