Who is the better leader? Two mortal enemies face off–actually, only one can take his face off.
The federal government is losing its respectability through both its bold-faced lies and its complete ineptitude in the face of the Benghazi attack. When a sack of potatoes would have provided a better response than that of the current administration, that says a lot.
The president knew that the Benghazi attack was by terrorists, something he confirmed in the second 2012 presidential debate, despite his and Candy Crowley’s attempts to lie to millions of Americans on live TV.
Benghazi Attack Leadership Showdown
The CIA chain of command denied ground operators support when Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans were under attack. Not once. Not twice. This happened three times. Had a sack of potatoes been in charge, no orders to “stand down” would have been given, allowing our people to take action as needed.
Point: three points to sack of potatoes—one for each opportunity the government passed by.
The president went to bed knowing that American citizens were under attack and still did nothing. A sack of potatoes would have done nothing as well, since it is not sentient.
Point: draw.
The president showed a disturbing lack of compassion and taste by asking for campaign contributions the next morning in Nevada. A sack of potatoes would have done no such thing due to lack of sentience. At the same time, it would not have made the matter more appalling that it already is.
Point: sack of potatoes.
Obama chastised Romney for trying to make the Benghazi attack “political” during the 2012 election debates. With full-knowledge that this is a political matter, this is just a blatant deception. A sack of potatoes would not have lied to the American people, because it cannot speak.
Point: sack of potatoes.
Obama lied about not knowing that the Benghazi attack was terrorism, saying it was the next day in the White House rose garden. It took him two more weeks to inform the American public, however. Instead, he tried to blame it on a low-budget, tasteless YouTube video. A sack of potatoes would not have lied, and any idiot knows that there are countless tasteless YouTube videos about far worse things.
Point: two points for sack of potatoes; one for not lying and one for not misleading. There’s a draw for both sides being oblivious to the nature of YouTube.
Obama acknowledged that the Benghazi attack had actually occurred. A sack of potatoes would have done no such thing.
Point: government.
By blaming it on a YouTube video critical of Muslims, Obama strengthens racial and religious tensions domestically and in a region in which we have been at war for nearly ten years.
Point: four points for sack of potatoes; one for not inciting religious tension abroad, one for not inciting racial tension abroad, one for not inciting racial tensions at home, one for not inciting religious hatred at home.
Obama then gave a half-hearted handshake and condolence to the families of the victims of the attacks. A sack of potatoes has no hands.
Point: government, for the attempt. However, the government also gets a one-point penalty for Obama’ insincerity, which is essentially a slap-in-the-face to the grieving families. Net gain for the government: zero.
CIA spokesperson, Jennifer Youngblood, does nothing to prove that the requests for support were granted. Instead, she uses vague terms that provide no better clue as to what transpired in Benghazi, saying, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.” Right after, she says that, “claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” Again, Youngblood provides no verification as to what occurred. She then tries to misdirect the issue by focusing on the tragedy of the deaths—the very deaths caused by the government.
Point: two for sack of potatoes; draw for not avoiding the inquiry, and two for a.) not trying to avoid the issue by highlighting the deaths that b.) it would have caused by its own negligence.
In the end, the victory is decisive, with the hypothetical sack of potatoes handling the Benghazi attack better than the government with a score of 13-1.
Think Obama and a sack of potatoes going head-to-head is unlikely? It has already happened once before. And the potatoes won that one, too.
Trackbacks / Pings