This week in the presidential campaign has been shaped by two things: Big Bird and Libya.  Unfortunately for Dear Ruler, neither work in his favor.  As I wrote yesterday, Big Bird is nothing more than a lame distraction from Obama’s pathetic debate performance, and it seems as though Americans agree that the focus on Big Bird is shallow, to say the least.

But then there is Libya.  This issue continues to grow.  Yesterday we had a hearing in Congress on the issue, as well as a White House press briefing (which we hadn’t had in over two weeks). 

Let’s start with the press briefing. 

Some in the ObamaMedia actually held Carney’s feet to the fire.  Ed Henry of Fox News asked Carney point blank, did you mislead the American people because you didn’t want to admit that this was a terrorist attack?  Of course Carney said no and that Obama called this an “act of terror” from the beginning.  But if you look at Obama’s remarks on September 12^th, he also had this to say:

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” 

In other words … we reject this video about the Prophet Muhammad and it shouldn’t be used as justification for violence.  This is the only indication of a motive that Obama made during his address the day after the terrorist attack in Libya (before jetting off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser). 

Then two days later, on September 14^th, Jay Carney himself tells reporters “We don’t have or did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.” 

And then two days after that, we had Susan Rice get on not one, not two but five talk shows and declare that this was a spontaneous act in reaction to a video.  When Ed Henry asked Jay Carney about Susan Rice, Carney resorted to blaming the media by making a comment about “clips that don’t always appear on some air” would show you that Susan Rice was referring to preliminary assessments based on preliminary information.  Fine.  If he wants to play it that way, we can.  Would you consider ABC News a part of the ObamaMedia?  Good.  Me too.  Here’s what Susan Rice told ABC News … hardly one that would want to edit “clips that don’t always appear on the air” in order to make Dear Ruler look bad!  She said to Jake Tapper:

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in – in the wake of the revolution in Libya are – are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.”

This was five days after the attack … and yet now we have learned that the administration knew within 24 hours that this was a terrorist attack at the hands of al Qaeda.  Did Susan Rice just miss the memo, or was she deliberately told what message she would impart to the American people? 

Then speaking of Jake Tapper, he had a pretty good line for Jay Carney yesterday.  He said that Obama on “60 Minutes” said that Romney has tendency to shoot first and aim later, but given the fact that so much was made on the video ... didn’t Obama shoot first and aim later?  Carney’s response was simply that Tapper’s “assessment was not complete.”  Yeah, right. 

Then we had the hearing yesterday in the House Oversight Committee.  We learned a few interesting things. 

First was testimony from Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood who told the committee that al Qaeda’s presence in Libya has grown every day since the United States became involved and that “they are certainly more established than we are.” 

Then we had Democrats Elijah Cummings and Eleanor Holmes-Norton using the forum to attack Republicans for the budget cuts, which they claim led to the lack of security for Chris Stevens and his team in Benghazi.  Unfortunately for them, State Department official Charlene Lamb testified that budget cuts had nothing to do with security decisions in Benghazi.  Oops, so much for the “blame Republicans” narrative.  Oh and the Daily Caller then points out that these security funding cuts received “overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.”

So what is really going on here?  What’s happening is that the Obama administration and his campaign propagandists have worked for years now to paint the picture of Obama being the ultimate destroyer of al Qaeda.  He “got bin Laden” and his drones strikes have been immensely successful and his policies of “hope” have inspired millions of Muslims to seek democracy in their regions.  The Obama administration has been trying to hammer this home for a while.  I have a few examples to show you what I mean.

Sep 30, 2011: In the first White House reaction to the killing of radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, President Obama said this morning that his death “is a major blow to al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate … Make no mistake, this is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world,” Obama said of the news that Awlaki was killed in Yemen overnight.

January 19th, 2012: “… what is fair to say is that the counterterrorism strategy as applied to al Qaeda has been extremely successful. The job is not finished, but there’s no doubt that we have severely degraded al Qaeda’s capacity.”

May 1, 2012 (the one year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden): "The goal that I set - to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild - is within our reach."

But I’ll take you back to Colonel Wood’s testimony yesterday:

KUCINICH: “Is Al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our involvement?”

WOOD: “Yes, sir their presence grows every day, they are certainly more established than we are.” 

In other words, this is exactly the opposite message the Obama administration has been trying to push.  If this is the case in Libya, what about al Qaeda’s presence in other parts of the region?  This calls into question Obama’s “success” in the Middle East and on his ability to handle foreign relations … a blow to his image right before the election.