You don't allow the human shield argument to stop you, otherwise they own you. Otherwise, you can never do anything. Otherwise, the intent is to never do anything---ever. Which is the far left's modus operandi.
The left was against doing anything at all after 9-11. Their argument was offered in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. I remember it very well. Ninety percent of the country wanted something done about it even if it risked war. Well, a humanitarian catastrophe already happened at Ground Zero. The question is and should always be--- what are you prepared to do about it? The liberals' answer--- Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the TV sitcom: which was a show about nothing. It's what you get from liberals---nothing.
The story was hot because it caused my computer to lock up trying to get the web page to load it. Sure, it was probably a linux issue, but it tells me that this story must be super hot. And Maha wouldn't mess it with if it weren't. She's on the payroll, I gather.
Does Obama seek to be a King? That question comes from a thought--- that this seems rather Machiavellian of him. You see, Ambassador Stevens is expendable, but Obama is not. Hence, Obama cannot fire upon an armed group, lest he appear to be unpeaceable. His reputation was at stake. Consider this quote ( from Wikipedia)
Aside from that, Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well. As a result, a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also positively willing to act immorally at the right times. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasizes the occasional need for the methodical exercise of brute force, deceit, and so on. [ emphasis added]Therefore, lie about why you did something because an election is the right time. Stonewall about it because an election is the right time. And so on and so forth. Note: some of the emphasis above is that it coincides with post modern thought. Post modernism is the philosophy of the left. Unfortunately, it has infected a large part of Western "thinking".
The question isn't what he did in covering this up, but why he did it in the first place. His place is more important than anything to him. That's the point. For that reason, it is Machiavellian.
The Prince was about a hereditary prince, by the way. So, is Obama now royalty? Is the Republic now dead, really dead, as Ann Barnhardt has been saying? Er, could be.