If you search "Obama didn't know", you will get over 12 million hits. Added to the ones listed here, he "didn't know about NSA spying, he "didn't know" about the poor computer setup for Obamacare. If the CEO "didn't know about major potential, and real, scandals that could rock his company heads would be rolling like bowling balls. Within a short time his job would be gone for gross negligence and incompetence. On the positive side for Obama, however, he was fully aware of Trayvon Martin's case.
Obama’s Scandals: Are We Really To Believe He Didn’t Know?
Obama spends a lot of time saying that he knew or he didn't know about various government activities that turn out badly.
◾The president knew nothing of the IRS misconduct until it was announced in the news
◾The president knew nothing of Holder's Fast and Furious sting operation
◾The president knew of Benghazi from the beginning and followed each development (per Jay Carney news conference, May 20, 2013).
At issue is whether to believe the presidential claims and also at issue is whether it is important.
It's important because if the president was involved in activities that turn out to be illegal, then his fitness for office is in question.
Let's look at each of the scandals mentioned above.
In the IRS scandal Obama claims he knew nothing until the news was released in the press. However, it now comes out that news of this audit was published in October 2012 on the IRS website, and we learn today that Obama's Chief of Staff was told in April but withheld the information from his boss.
Ironically, what matters in this case is not whether Obama knew, but whether he lied about knowing. Since the IRS investigation is a matter of some political significance and it is unlikely that Obama influenced the investigation, why wouldn't he be told?
Beyond that, what are the odds of the Chief of Staff not telling the president anything? If the Chief of Staff withheld information from the president, he would himself become the president at that point. It's a situation that no CEO would tolerate and besides, how would the Chief of Staff know what to withhold?
In this case as well as in Benghazi, information is dribbled out, presumably in response to public reaction to previous information that had been dribbled. That's not a practice that inspires confidence.
FAST AND FURIOUS
Eric Holder explains that the Fast and Furious operation was meant to track guns sold in the United States to their ultimate destination in Mexico so that arrests could be made.
Apparently Holder did not anticipate that Mexico would angrily announce that it had no knowledge of this operation. He also didn't anticipate that a border patrol agent would be killed by one of his guns.
Beyond that, there is Holder's refusal to honor a congressional subpoena demanding release of all emails concerning this matter. Why would that be?
More likely than Holder's explanation, Obama and Holder, both champions of gun confiscation in the United States, met and planned Fast and Furious. The idea was that these guns would be identified by serial number as being involved in drug crimes, the guns would be demonized, and confiscation efforts in the United States would be accelerated and bolstered by this new illustration of the evils of gun ownership.
At first there was no mention of Obama's involvement in Benghazi beyond Clinton's statement that she called the president and told him what had happened.
Now it dibbles out weeks later in a Jay Carney news conference on May 20, 2013 that Obama knew from the very first and followed developments every step of the way.
Why the dribbling? In all probability it was to keep open options depending on how the public reacted. If the public seemed to hold Obama responsible, then he wasn't there, but if they were outraged that he didn't do anything, then he was there doing the best he could.
The dribbling also may have been to downplay the significance of Benghazi (it wasn't important enough to worry about presidential involvement), as Susan Rice was apparently trying to do by claiming it was a reaction to an anti-Islamic movie, not an attack by Al Qaeda terrorists. (This was odd since the CIA and her own talking points told her otherwise.)
Now that we know Obama was involved at every stage, the problem is why didn't he send rescue forces that were stationed in Tripoli?
The most plausible answer is that he wanted to avoid open combat with Al Qaeda affiliates right after he had boasted that Al Qaeda was defeated. This was, after all, just before the 2012 elections.
These claims of knowing or not knowing are at best questionable and it seems likely they are lies. In two of the three cases, they involved American lives.
So then the question becomes: what do you do with a president who lies?
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/obamas-scandals-are-we-really-to-believe-he-didnt-know/#ixzz2j2u2C4rB
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/obamas-scandals-are-we-really-to-believe-he-didnt-know/#EVdiSlL8XyObOhuT.99